Over at the Windows Vista blog, Microsoft’s Mike Nash just posted with a bit of news that’s both minor and significant: The upcoming version of Windows code-named Windows 7 will, in fact, be called Windows 7.

On one hand, the name of a new version of Windows is utterly unimportant–it could be called Windows Garanimals for all I care if it’s solid, and if it’s not solid it doesn’t matter in the least what its moniker is. But it’s nice, at least, to know the name without any further ado. And as I write about Windows 7–and I will, in great profusion–I won’t have to call it “the product code-named Windows 7, although Microsoft has not released its official name to date.”

At first blush, I like it–it’s simple and direct, and has a back-to-basics feel. If the operating system it applies to has the same personality–and it sounds like Microsoft’s aims are in that direction, at least–it’ll be good news. I’ll be attending Microsoft’s Professional Developers Conference in a couple of week, where a lot more information about Windows 7 should be released–stay tuned for details.

Okay, back to that name. Microsoft is saying that it stems from this being the seventh version of Windows. I’m not sure if the company has specified what the six previous versions were, but the AeroXperience Blog ((via the Seattle Times)) is trying to account for them. It started with this, which is based on kernel versions:

1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows NT (NT 4)
5. Windows 2000 (NT 5)
6. Windows XP (NT 5.1)
7. Windows Vista (NT 6)

That’s seven versions not counting Windows 7, and it doesn’t even include Windows 95–it can’t be right. They then tried this list of consumer-oriented editions:

1. Windows
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows 95
5. Windows 98
6. Windows ME
7. Windows XP
8. Windows Vista

That’s eight versions not including Windows 7. How about business-oriented releases?

1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 3.5
3. Windows NT 4
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7

That’s seven versions, but it ignores the first six years or so of Windows history. And I repeat: Not counting Windows 95 as a version of Windows is like listing American presidents and leaving off FDR. (Er, lousy metaphor on multiple levels, but you get the idea.)

Lemme take a stab at this:

1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows 95
5. Windows NT 4.0
6. Windows XP

Okay, I’m to six versions already and haven’t mentioned Windows 2000 or Windows Vista. I give up.

I assume Microsoft is thinking of a specific list of Windows versions–if you know what it is, lemme know.But this sort of reminds me of the days when the Walt Disney company wanted to trumpet each animated feature it released with an important-sounding number–its fifteenth feature, or the twentieth, or the twenty-fifth–and did so by counting differently each time it released a new one.

Alternate theory on Microsoft’s thinking: It’s calling this Windows 7 because seven is a lucky number. It’s as justifiable a rationale as any other…

I won’t even bring up the fact that Windows 3.11 was technically one of the most minor versions of Windows, but also one of the best and most popular. And I’ll ignore the point that Ed Bott made in a post before the name Windows 7 became official–that the new version is technically Windows 6.1. (It’s not hard to figure out why Microsoft didn’t give it that as its formal name.)

So what’s your opinion about that name?

 
7 Comments


Read more: Microsoft, Windows