Comments on: How Microsoft Windows 7 Got Its Name

By: Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:38:37 +0000

Yes, I agree, Joseph. I enjoy Windows 7 but some people feel that Linux/Ubuntu is more stable. Point well taken.

By: Blobgi

Blobgi — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:02:19 +0000

Well, if you were to open up CMD and just look at it, it lists windows 7 as Microsoft Windows 6.1, off of the NT Kernel I believe. Maybe the 7th edition of windows, but the kernel is still the same.

By: DaveH

DaveH — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:24:11 +0000

There was a time that I jumped on every new release of Windows as it came out. ME cured me of that. I still like to have the most recent version, but now I wait until at least the first service pack, and I pay a lot of attention to what people are saying about the release. I have Vista at the moment, even though I was just fine with XP, but I only got it recently, and have found it to be far less troublesome than the negative hype led me to expect.

So, I’ll get 7, but not until it’s been on the streets long enough to hear what the general experience people are having with it is.

By: Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 14:14:27 +0000

@bodydetox – many people share your perspective. In fact, on my work laptop, I have Windows XP. You are right about the fact that XP is stable. In fact, I have Windows Vista on my personal laptop, and sometimes the Windows Explorer program has to restart when I do a simple copy and paste. But, I believe Microsoft is aware of all this an is engineering Windows 7 in a much improved manner. Thanks for your thoughtful comment, and hope to see you here again soon! Regards, Keith

By: bodydetox

bodydetox — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 11:00:26 +0000

the interface of Windows 7 is great but in my opinion Windows XP is still a very solid and stable operating system. Right now, I would never give up XP for Windows 7.

By: Phaoloo

Phaoloo — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 07:50:12 +0000

haha, now I can understand the name.

By: Keith Johnson

Keith Johnson — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:06:17 +0000

@Everybody, especially David…mucho thanks for the great feedback. Cheers, Keith

By: David Leutzinger

David Leutzinger — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:54:59 +0000

Ugh, sorry about the spacing.
http://archdave.wordpress.com/.....clarified/

By: David Leutzinger

David Leutzinger — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:53:05 +0000

Major Minor
Version Version RTM Name
1 .01 Windows 1.01

2 .03 Windows 2.03
.1 Windows 2.1
.11 Windows 2.11

3 .0 Windows 3.0
.1 Windows 3.1
.1 528 Windows NT 3.1
.11 Windows for Workgroups
.5 807 Windows NT 3.5
.51 1057 Windows NT 3.51

4 .0 950 Windows 95
.0 Windows 95 OSR2
.0 1381 Windows NT 4.0
.10 1998 Windows 98
.10 2222 Windows 98 SE
.90 3000 Win ME

5 .0 2195 Windows 2000
.1 2600 Windows XP
.2 3790 Win Server 2003

6 .0 6000 Windows Vista
.0 6001 Win Server 2008
.1 6001 Windows Vista SP1
.1 6002 Windows Vista SP2
.1 7000 Windows 7 Beta

7 .0 Windows Azure (Cloud OS)

By: Greg J.

Greg J. — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:47:09 +0000

I assume that Windows for Workgroups falls into release 3
Windows 98 falls into release 4
Windows NT is also in release 4 (hence Win NT 4.0) even though it was fundamentally much different than Windows 95/98?
Windows Me is probably part of release 4 also, being a minor update to Win98.
And Windows Bob? Hmm…

As for Windows 7, I’ve heard that is really based on much the same kernel as Vista — just tweaked to be smaller and more efficient. So, not sure if it is justified in its jump to the “7″ moniker, but I’m sure it sounds better in the Marketing Dept. that way.