[RickSOLET]

So it's confirmed that Windows 7 is the final name of Vista's successor. But many couldn't figure out how Microsoft had reached the number 7. Actually Microsoft is counting kernel version number, instead of counting every single minor and major Windows release. But then others wanted to know why the current builds of Windows 7 were at kernel version 6.1, not 7.0.

Mike Nash, Corporate VP of Windows Product Management, chimed in again on the Windows Vista Team Blog with the official explanation:

Quote

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.

[Frylock86]

I think they chose it because 7 is a lucky number.

[Preath]

What happened to MinWin? why...

[Gragier_521]

So it should be Windows 6.1

[Syzygy]

So this might be like a SP3 for Vista then?

[adrynalyne]

Riddle me this.


1. Why does everyone associate service packs with kernel versions, when in most cases the service pack does not update the kernel?

2. Why does a new OS have to contain a new kernel to be considered new or else its a service pack of the last OS?

[Frylock86]

StickwithXP, on Oct 17 2008, 01:44 PM, said:

So this might be like a SP3 for Vista then?

No.

[Johnnyboy]

Gragier_521, on Oct 17 2008, 01:12 PM, said:

So it should be Windows 6.1

Yes.

[Preath]

Well, why keep something old when they could (and have) the chance of making and upgrade and get longer into the OS marketing. Why release a OS with remade UI and nothing else changed?

Microsoft like take it slow, make one new OS with some UI changes. Next OS just get another remarkable UI change and without some native programs installed, but no Kernel change for making the OS itself better. Eyecandy the whole way.... -.-

[endrit10]

OS can be better with the same kernal.

Shit i bet they could improve Vista with a windows 2000 kernal.

Its perfectly possible.

[adrynalyne]

Emil2k, on Oct 17 2008, 07:48 PM, said:

Well, why keep something old when they could (and have) the chance of making and upgrade and get longer into the OS marketing. Why release a OS with remade UI and nothing else changed?

Microsoft like take it slow, make one new OS with some UI changes. Next OS just get another remarkable UI change and without some native programs installed, but no Kernel change for making the OS itself better. Eyecandy the whole way.... -.-

Funny, I could have sworn Apple does the same exact thing.

[lareeth]

The current Kernel in windows vista is pretty stable, so 6.1 should be even better and maybe smaller. A totally rewritten kernel (ie. 7.0) could cause a second vista effect because people would want to wait a while before adopting Windows 7 believing that its unstable. Building on a current and reliable kernel is, in my opinion, the right way to go.

[timbertide]

Who cares if it's 6.1 or 7? All we need is a perfect OS!

This post has been edited by timbertide: 18 October 2008 - 12:55 PM

[Laguna]

I agree, but I doubt if Microsoft can do it...

[Secured Tim]

Quote

Who cares if it's 6.1 or 7? All we need is a perfect OS!

Right!