Why 7?

There's been a lot of lively discussion since I confirmed yesterday that the official name for the next version of the Window client operating system will be "Windows 7" about how we got to the number "7."

I'll say up front, that there are many ways to count the releases of Windows and it's been both a trip down memory lane and quite amusing to read all the different theories about how we got to the number "7."

Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple.  The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

Here's where things get a little more complicated.  Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0.  Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0.  So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility.  We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues. 

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.

There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7.  It is not.

Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system.  It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation.  The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.

We're just over a week away from showing off Windows 7 at PDC and WinHEC.  I look forward to sharing more soon!

Mike

Tags: ,

Comments

  1. Bryant
    Posted on: October 14, 2008 at 7:45PM  

    @adir1:

    It has nothing to do with developers not knowing how to create applications. When the major is incremented, it generally signifies that the OS has a large number of changes to some features relied upon by third party applications.

    This is why most applications look at kernel revision numbers: if a lot of changes are made between one OS and its sequel and the kernel major isn't incremented, the application which looks out for that "flag" might crash when trying to access methods which would have worked in the previous OS.

    If anything, it means the developers are properly doing their jobs.

  2. Orlando
    Posted on: October 14, 2008 at 7:49PM  

    I think that not is very important the Name for Windows.

    The most importante is the performace of Windows, code, high quality.

    i'm Developer, so, i want a good OS for create a lot of projects.

  3. Jim Blacksher
    Posted on: October 14, 2008 at 8:07PM  

    Hmm...

    Windows 7

    Mac OS 10.5

    Will new shoppers believe that Mac is "newer"?

  4. stevesinchak
    FeaturedCommunity
    Posted on: October 14, 2008 at 8:28PM  

    Thanks for clarifying!

  5. StophVista
    Posted on: October 14, 2008 at 11:14PM  

    I'm still not entirely sure on how the numbers work out, but I like the name anyways :)

  6. someone
    Posted on: October 15, 2008 at 12:52AM  

    I do not dislike the name Windows 7. Although it is meaningless without being version numbered NT 7.0 it doesn't matter. What matters is the mismatch. No one is liking the mismatch. Please change the version number to NT 7.0. And Windows XP shipped only 1.5 years after Windows 2000, so it's also logical to call it 5.1 although it had several kernel improvements. In case of Windows Vista and Windows 7, it's a gap of 3 years. Please consider changing to NT 7.0. (As an exception, we're ready for the application compatibility issues that may arise out of this version number thing) but prevent the confusion and meaninglessness of the name.

  7. mikefarinha
    Posted on: October 15, 2008 at 12:59AM  

    People like names to mean something.

    When I first heard of Windows Vista I thought it was a silly name. But once I saw how nice it looked and the glass effect of Aero it made sense to me

    Windows = Something you see through

    Vista = A beautiful view

    I like the name Windows 7, and it made sense to me with Vista being 6 so the next version should be 7...

    Now that line of thinking has been thrown out the window. Perhaps I can convince my self that version 6.1 is really a code for version 6 + 1...

    Eventhough I think it is a bit silly to call it Windows 7 where the 7 isn't referenced anywhere in the code I'm sure everyone will get over it and learn to love it all the same... heck look at Nintendo's 'Wii' everyone hated that name when it came out and now it is the worlds most popular video game console.

  8. PatriotB
    Posted on: October 15, 2008 at 5:39AM  

    I've been programming Windows for 13 years and don't know whether to laugh or shake my head when reading this post.  I will say thanks for at least addressing the issue however.

    "Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility."

    I doubt this very much.  XP was set of evolutionary improvements over 2000 and so the version number of 5.1 was very fitting and very deserving.  Certain components (namely, shell & common controls) DID do their own thing and bump up to V6 with XP (causing additional issues when they were still V6 in Vista), but overall the OS would never have been considered worthy of NT 6.0 by anybody.

    Likewise, "7" is a set of evolutionary improvements over Vista and so the version number of 6.1 is very fitting.  From everything that's been revealed thus far about "7" -- unless you guys are holding some major cards up your sleeve, it's NOT going to be major in any of the ways that made NT4, 2000, or Vista major, and is thus not deserving of NT7.0 at all.

    Anyways, if you're now claiming that XP was "major", then it should definitely be included in your list of Windows versions as "6", then Vista would be "7" and "7" would be "8".

    "Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system.  It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation."

    I'm sure it is a big effort -- simply the number of end users it will end up having, makes it so.  But then couldn't even service packs be considered major efforts?

    The point is that 7 isn't as major as Vista.  Not as major as 2000.  I guess as a developer, I am biased, in my measure of majorness is in terms of how much has changed/been added in terms of subsystems, APIs, and underlying capabilities.

    "There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7.  It is not."

    Of course it's a very relevant release -- it's the minor versions of Windows (3.1, 98, XP) that have been the most successful, because they've built upon the .0 before them but refined the .0's rough edges.  And a version of Windows that builds upon Vista's incredible platform and then fills in the cracks (or in Vista's case by certain people's opinions, chasms) -- is exactly what we need right now.  And it sounds like that's exactly what Windows 7 is.

    The major-minor heartbeat of Windows has worked well for years and to claim that nothing is ever minor is just wrong.  Yes, minor versions of Windows are more major than most any other software product out there, but compared to true major Windows versions, they are minor.

    It makes me wonder, if it were up to you (you being SteveSi and whoever else makes these decisions) -- what *would* qualify as a minor release?  An infinite series of .0's (like Office does) is kinda silly; maybe you should just stick the service pack level in the minor version slot and be done with it?

    "The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers."

    Even bumping the *minor* version number can cause problems -- evidenced by apps that install on XP but not 2003 -- so why not stay at 6.0 forever?  I'm curious for how long this will remain; Java did 1.0-1.5 and then artificially jumped 1.6 to 6.0.  Same thing for Solaris: 2.7 became 7.0.

    Overall, I *am* a fan of using a simple marketing name that reflects the version.  When Longhorn was under development, I was hoping for it to be released simply as Windows 6.0 (the old-school in me wanted it named Windows NT 6.0).  I'm not opposed to "7" if it really truly was an 7.0-worthy release.  But it isn't.  And what happens when the real 7.0 comes along -- will it need to be skipped to avoid the certain confusion?

    My personal opinion is that Steven Sinofsky brought over the "major version only" mentality from Office and 1) scrapped the non-scope-implying codename Vienna and replaced it with "7", leading the public to expect another release, 2) cooler heads prevailed and realized that it isn't major enough to be 7.0 so it became 6.1.  Yet no one at MS wants to admit that in the grand scheme of things, it's a comparatively minor release, so no one's willing to be brave and stick up for calling it Windows 6.1 after all the months of letting the Windows 7 codename float around.  It would seem like backpedaling of sorts, almost an admission that what we need is an improved Vista, whereas with artificially using the number 7 you get to convey a bigger departure from Vista than what really exists.

    Anyway, thanks for the post, and thanks for reading my lengthy comments.

  9. PatriotB
    Posted on: October 15, 2008 at 5:48AM  

    Oh, and one other thing... if 6.1 seems to meager, you can always use 6.5.  Plenty of significant products .5 monikers (NT 3.5, IE 5.5, Exchange 5.5, SQL Server 6.5).

  10. StanYau
    Posted on: October 15, 2008 at 9:37AM  

    This is going to get confusing!

    The Windows 7 name is great - nice and simple, and I can see where the numbering comes from.

    As for the Windows 6.1 version number - I can also see the logical sense in this.

    HOWEVER, I think it's going to cause massive issues down the line due to this "product vs. codebase" numbering disparity.  Will Windows 8 The Product (which one assumes may be a big architectural re-write similar to Windows 2000/Vista) be versioned as v7.0?

    I agree with the other comments that calling this code base v6.1 just to compensate for sloppy version-check code is not a good reason for this disparity between product and version naming...

Trackbacks

  1. Posted by: Robert Hensing's Blog on October 14, 2008 at 5:06PM

    I actually for once - LOVE that we are keeping the name of the OS simple and leaving it at Win7. I will

  2. Posted by: TheUndeadable entwickelt on October 14, 2008 at 5:44PM

    .Net 1.0 wird in C# 1 programmiert. .Net 1.1 wird in C# 1 programmiert. .Net 2.0 wird in C# 2 programmiert. .Net 3.0 wird in C# 2 programmiert. .Net 3.5 wird in C# 3 programmiert.   Windows 2000 besaß die Versionsnummer 5.0. Windows XP be

  3. Posted by: John Coyne's Embedded Blog on October 14, 2008 at 6:11PM

    if anyone saw the formal announcement yesterday from Mike Nash regarding the name for the next version

  4. Posted by: El blog de Eduardo Arredondo en Geeks.ms on October 14, 2008 at 11:06PM

    Como es sabido la próxima versión de Windows se denominará Windows 7, Microsoft ha estado soltando algunos

  5. Posted by: [ michael's infrastructure talk ] on October 15, 2008 at 6:15AM

    Die nächste Betriebssystem-Generation von Microsoft wird den Namen " Windows 7 " tragen. Dies

  6. Posted by: TechBlog on October 15, 2008 at 6:58AM

    • Firefox 3.1 beta 1 now available for download and First look: Firefox 3.1 beta 1 officially released • Fake Microsoft Patch Tuesday malware campaign spreading - Fake notifications lead to malware, not patches. • Why 7? - It may...

  7. Posted by: ◆かっぺちゃんの航海日誌Ⅱ◆ Epsode2 on October 15, 2008 at 8:42AM

    ※ITmedia より記事抜粋「Windows 7」がなぜ7番目のWindows...

  8. Posted by: Teamzille.de on October 16, 2008 at 1:52AM

    Die Versionsnummern der verschiedenen Windows-Betriebssysteme k�nnen unter Umst�nden schomal f�r etwas Verwirrung sorgen. So handelt es sich bei Windows 2000 beispielsweise um die Version 5.0 und obwohl XP wohl das Major Release von Windows bisher war,

  9. Posted by: 潮流科技 on October 16, 2008 at 7:53AM

    分类: 膝上电脑 , 桌面产品 套一句老外爱用的网络语：WTF？ Windows Vista Blog 的 Mike Nash 解释为什么 Windows 7 要取这个名字 ，前半段和我们大家都知道的一样

  10. Posted by: ucel.net on October 16, 2008 at 9:59AM

    Ty m razem nie będzie o .NET. Tym razem będzie o polityce nazewniczej firmy Microsoft . Jeśli dawno temu

  11. Posted by: Compyblog on October 16, 2008 at 1:35PM

    Die nächste Version von Windows soll ja "Windows 7" heißen. Eine Begründung dafür kann man sich im 'Windows Vista Team Blog' durchlesen. Besonders faszinierend: Intern wird das OS die Versionsnummer 6.1 tragen. Damit ist es dann wohl eherWind

  12. Posted by: Windows 7 on October 23, 2008 at 4:38AM

    Gastbeitrag von Michael Kalbe , Manager Technical Evangelism in der Developer Platform & Strategy

  13. Posted by: Windows 7 Revealed at MasterMaq’s Blog on October 28, 2008 at 7:33PM

    Pingback from  Windows 7 Revealed at MasterMaq’s Blog

  14. Posted by: Of Windows and Numbering « Aadil’s Blog on October 30, 2008 at 1:07PM

    Pingback from  Of Windows and Numbering « Aadil’s Blog

  15. Posted by: ???????????????????? | We CMS on October 31, 2008 at 4:46AM

    Pingback from  ???????????????????? | We CMS

  16. Posted by: Windows 7, il marketing nel nome « iPower 400 on November 04, 2008 at 1:33PM

    Pingback from  Windows 7, il marketing nel nome « iPower 400

  17. Posted by: Windows 7 is secretly Windows 6.1? The confusion begins! on November 09, 2008 at 9:14PM

    Pingback from  Windows 7 is secretly Windows 6.1? The confusion begins!

  18. Posted by: Why Windows 7? on November 28, 2008 at 1:20AM

    Pingback from  Why Windows 7?

  19. Posted by: ny-central.org | Technology » Blog Archive » Windows Vista SP3 to come soon on December 02, 2008 at 8:40AM

    Pingback from  ny-central.org | Technology  » Blog Archive   » Windows Vista SP3 to come soon

  20. Posted by: Eager To Know Why Windows 7 on December 27, 2008 at 2:03AM

    Pingback from  Eager To Know Why Windows 7

  21. Posted by: d o t - c o m a *:o) on January 05, 2009 at 3:07AM

    E noi li ringraziamo, che ci fanno morire dal ridere. Sul blog del "vapore della finestra" (window-steam-blog ;-) ci raccontano...

  22. Posted by: i.justrealized: “We decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1″ on January 05, 2009 at 5:23AM

    Pingback from  i.justrealized:   “We decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1″

  23. Posted by: links for 2009-01-05 | Yostivanich.com on January 05, 2009 at 10:04AM

    Pingback from  links for 2009-01-05 | Yostivanich.com

  24. Posted by: links for 2009-01-05 | hxf148 on January 05, 2009 at 5:03PM

    Pingback from  links for 2009-01-05 | hxf148

  25. Posted by: IEBlog on January 09, 2009 at 2:14PM

    As announced in February 2008 , Internet Explorer 8 sends an updated user-agent string when interacting

  26. Posted by: The Internet Explorer 8 User-Agent String (Updated Edition) | Techno Portal on January 09, 2009 at 11:11PM

    Pingback from  The Internet Explorer 8 User-Agent String (Updated Edition) | Techno Portal

  27. Posted by: -- addiehf??? on January 10, 2009 at 5:52PM

    Pingback from  --  addiehf???

  28. Posted by: W7 is "Vista Ultimate 6.1 Ultimate Edition Build 7000" - Windows 7 Forums on January 11, 2009 at 6:24PM

    Pingback from  W7 is "Vista Ultimate 6.1 Ultimate Edition Build 7000" - Windows 7 Forums

  29. Posted by: De ce Windows 7 a fost numit asa « Instantanee’s Weblog on January 12, 2009 at 1:21AM

    Pingback from  De ce Windows 7 a fost numit asa « Instantanee’s Weblog

  30. Posted by: Wild Wild Web » Geek » Windows 7 : mais pourquoi 7 ? on January 14, 2009 at 3:30AM

    Pingback from  Wild Wild Web  » Geek    » Windows 7 : mais pourquoi 7 ?

  31. Posted by: Windows 7 build 6801 setup screenshots - Pagina 3 | hilpers on January 18, 2009 at 9:06AM

    Pingback from  Windows 7 build 6801 setup screenshots - Pagina 3 | hilpers

  32. Posted by: Блог команды разработчиков Internet Explorer 8 on January 19, 2009 at 3:02AM

    Обновленная cтрока User-Agent в Internet Explorer 8 Как уже сообщалось в феврале прошлого года , при

  33. Posted by: KDE 4.2 | hilpers on January 27, 2009 at 6:59AM

    Pingback from  KDE 4.2 | hilpers

  34. Posted by: ???????? ?? Windows 7 » ?????? ???????????????? Windows 7 on February 03, 2009 at 7:22AM

    Pingback from  ???????? ?? Windows 7 » ?????? ???????????????? Windows 7

  35. Posted by: US ISV Developer Evangelism Team on March 17, 2009 at 8:34AM

    If you're running Windows 7, you may be wondering what "version" of Windows you are really running? There's

  36. Posted by: ISV blog-voer on March 24, 2009 at 4:15AM

    If you're running Windows 7, you may be wondering what "version" of Windows you are really

  37. Posted by: IE8 팀 블로그 on April 17, 2009 at 12:03AM

    2008 년 2 월에 말했던 (영어) 것처럼, Internet Explorer 8 은 웹 서버와 상호작용할 때, 업데이트된 User-Agent 문자열을 발송합니다. User-Agent

  38. Posted by: InstallSite Blog on May 18, 2009 at 3:38AM

    In every new version of Windows, Microsoft includes numerous “shims” to improve compatibility with existing

  39. Posted by: Win 7 - Version 6.1 ist W7? - MCSEboard.de MCSE Forum on May 24, 2009 at 4:42AM

    Pingback from  Win 7 - Version 6.1 ist W7? - MCSEboard.de MCSE Forum

  40. Posted by: » Blog Archive » Przeprowadzamy si?? na Windows 7 - instalacja, porady, nowe funkcje systemu on July 03, 2009 at 2:30AM

    Pingback from  » Blog Archive   » Przeprowadzamy si?? na Windows 7 - instalacja, porady, nowe funkcje systemu

Recent Posts

Tags

View more
© Copyright 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.   |   Privacy Statement