I appreciate your putting this information on the web. easier to access, read and digest. Your procedures on proper filing is very enriching. thank you so much.
Metin2 gold
Metin2 yang
Cheap metin2 yang
Cheap metin2 gold
Buy metin2 gold

Basically the number 7 is a lucky number in many Western cultures and anyway, Win7 runs off the tongue a little smoother than Win6.1

THE most important question~~!!!!

where does windows BOB fit into this action?> lol

So, if I run Windows 7 Server Hyper-V on the 6 virtual hosts my department is budgeted for next year, does that mean I have re-created the functionality of HHGTG's Deep Thought?

(6x7 = 42)?!?!?!?

To me, the ultimate question is WHY DOES HYPER-V SUCH SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH?!?!?! SERIOUSLY!!!!

Signed,
A recent VMware convert.

WHY DOES HYPER-V SUCH SOOOOOOOOOO MUCH?!?!?! SERIOUSLY!!!!


What?

I'm guessing that SUCH = SUCK.

No... it's 6x9 (in Base 13, that is). :-)

It's "one better" than 6.

"Vista", spanish for "view".
"Se ven" spanish for "visible"

Do they have problems of sight? Maybe they need new glasses...

They are still lamenting that Chevy already laughably used Nova as a name for a car also marketed in Latin America - which in Spanish means "no go"!

How appropriate for the Windows OS. I wonder what the Spanish term is for "re-install often"? That could work! ;-)

"Hecho un 8" (shaped as an eight) spanish for malformed.

One has to wonder what's lacking in your ability to properly use a computer...

Windows XP on my laptop. 3 years. No re-install needed.

Windows XP on *all* of our Optiplex Dell workstations for the last 3 years. No re-installs needed (Some of the older units have been running it for 5+).

Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 on my Home system for the last 6 months. Runs beautifully. No re-install needed.

Perhaps you should define what you mean by "often"... It apparently doesn't mean what you think it does.

Yep, same here at my job on the XP machines. Maybe it's the Optiplex's...? (kidding)

Actually, we even have two machines still running Windows 2000 since 2002, never been reinstalled. That and they both have just 256MB of RAM (most XP boxes have 512MB, although the newest ones we are rolling out have 2GB.)

C'mon kids. Windows SE7EN is a good monicker. Although 'sloth' comes to mind...

7...I guess it's another marketing technique really. Having used Mac OS and Windows extensively through many versions, it still amazes me at how badly Vista is getting hammered - mostly by those who've never actually used it, or simply view it as a 'knock-off' of OS X. Vista Ultimate 64-bit works fine, and I overclock the HELL out of my PC and play all the latest games...which my MacBook Pro cannot do (unless I run Boot Camp or Parallels...and even that really doesn't suffice with eye candy turned up).

Oh..that's right...I use BOTH OS's. Each has a good point. OS X is still a tad faster and a tad bit more stable (remember, Windows is more fragile than OS X..so you actually have to know what you are doing, otherwise you can break it. As opposed to OS X - it's made for those that are more nichey rather than techie). However, OS X just can't do gaming nearly as well as Windows. If only Steve Jobs would fix this...then I could get away from Windows.

Tentative names included Windows Blackcomb, Windows Vienna, WindOS X, Windex, Windows Steak and Bl*wj*bs Edition!!! (which proved in beta testing to be Tofu and Long Querulous Discussion About Where Our Relationship Is Going Edition) and Windows 2007^W2008^W2009^W2010.

Blog rant: http://tinyurl.com/3l8pws

I am about to be beaten to death by retards for saying this, but I put 64bit Vista on my Macbook Air because I want an OS that actually works...

Heh... Hope you've got a good of flameproof suit on... ;)

I'm not gonna beat you to death for that. I'm just going to say that you've obviously never tried XP64 or don't have hardware with drivers for that OS.

Nothing worth flaming, and it would be like chastising a handicapped kid for being slow. ;-)

People can use whaterever does the job. And at least the Mac gives him that choice of environments.

But one might wonder why one:
Buys a Mac and thinks the native 32/64 bit OSX doesn't work.

Loads Win64 with its lack of 64 bit apps and drivers and thinks it does...

Doesn't run Win64 (etc) under VMWare Fusion and thus availing themselves of a wealth of additional features. But then you just have to review the earlier reasons and smile.

And while I can see buying a Mac to have the additional flexibility to run multiple enviroments, to buy it just to run Windows 64???? But then they chose a boutique machine with extremely limited connectivity options. And this is the guy who thinks Win64 with its limitations is the sole answer...

At least choice is nice...even if you don't take advantage of all they offer.

Just as you haven't fully tried Vista x64 with compatible hardware?

Assumptions....aren't they fun? ;-)

I have this strange feeling too when I use OS X. Feeling limited.

What makes you think that there are no Vista 64bit drivers?

http://www.apple.com/sup...1forwindowsvista64.html

Yup sport, that's what we said...there are NO[/i] Vista 64 bit drivers.

But this comes from someone for who [i]feels limited using OSX.

Now go back and try to read for meaning. Maybe your mommy can help. And when you aren't too busy emoting, try logic.

"Vista x64 with compatible hardware"

The most satisfied I've even been with Windows... any version (though XP x64 came close).

Retard.
Apple provide poor x64 drivers for Vista. I much prefer my Latitude to the Air, but the Air's lighter. Both run Vista x64 quite happily, tho Apple's touchpad drivers won't let me tap-to-click which is irritating.

Apple hardware looks pretty.

Apple software for the most part looks pretty too. But it's not as functional...eg I had to resort to the command line to get the Air to hibernate correctly...

I suspect that the driver/application brakage being one of the 2 largest issues with vista migration, they decided post codenaming it 7.0 that it would be a minor architectural change, and with the name "Windows 7" (wrongfully) already all over the media as the fix for the vista mistakes that everyone should hold out for, it just makes marketting sence.

Hopefully They'll skip NT 7.x when it comes that time.

And my first impression, Sweet, I've been greatly annoyed at the thought that this was going to be 7.0 instead of 6.1 Historically full number increase sybolize large amounts of change with alot of application and driver brakeage, which is why 95/98/Me are all really basicly the same version (4.x anyone? Seperate code branch from NT 4.x of course)

I am going to name my kid 7....
7 is great!
7 beatings at school each day....
and in the end 7 to life...

windows 3.0....1
windows 98.....2
windows me.....3
windows 2000...4
windows xp.....5
windows vista..6
windows 7......7

makes sense to me.

What happened to 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 95 and 98SE? Why is 2000 there? If you're including non-consumer versions there's also NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51 and NT 4.0 to consider. You can't just randomly pick seven versions and say "This makes 7". :P

"You can't just randomly pick seven versions and say "This makes 7"."

Sure you can. As he just did... ;-)

Not that it makes sense, but then hey, look at this thread - and all just over trying to figure out how MS came up with the number 7. LOL!

And then ponder how in hell MS got any features in the OS to work at all!

windows 1 was IIRC a multitasker for DOS.
Trying to remember what windows 2 was.
I think I have windows 3.1 install floppies
somewhere around.
Windows 95---4
95b. ---4.1
95 osr2. ---4.2
98 ---5
98SE 5.1
And here's where I get confused about the
version numbers--at some point MS stopped
doing Windows, the DOS program and switched
over to Windows New Technology.
Windows NT is one, and so is XP.

windows 3.0....1 --- no... 3.0
windows 98.....2 --- no... 98
windows me.....3 --- no... ME
windows 2000...4 --- no... 2000
windows xp.....5 --- no... XP
windows vista..6 --- no... Vista
windows 7......7 --- no... Vista renamed

98SE 5.1
I dont know where you got this tidbit from by my windows XP, when i type ver in the cmd line says version 5.1

AFAIK, 95-98 were all point releases of the "4"s

I guess you never used Windows 1.x or Windows 2.x then? LOL

A quick look around the web will practically lay a proper list of Windows version history at your feet. It takes minimal effort. Wikipedia seems to be popular these days.

Windows 95x/98x/ME run on a separate kernel than Windows NT. The versioning is based on NT, *NOT* on Windows 9x. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0, XP is 5.1, Vista is 6.0, and Windows 7--

I was confused about where I got confused.
Sigh.

Happens to the best and worst of us... pretty much equally, surprisingly enough. ;)

I can see the ad with 7 dwarfs acting like they do the work under the hood of your PC! lol

The name means nothing, it's about performance. And in that regard I doubt Microsoft can deliver the goods. Besides even if Windoze 7 a.k.a. Vista 2nd edition is an improvement, Mac OS X Snow Leopard will once again blow Vista/Windoze 7 out of the water in performance and 64bit computing.

Yup, its a shame OSX is limited to such limited hardware or even more would be using it.

And OSX could stand to return to a numbered release system as well.

No matter how nice an OS is, it does no good if so few can actually use it, as Apple is SO AFRAID that if it decouples the OS from their PCs that their PCs will sink in market share faster than an anchor.

Poor Stevie, so afraid that his oh so hip machines can't even stand on their own against those lowly Dells and Packard Bells.

Not even if they were only running Windows...

Pathetic

"Mac OS X Snow Leopard"

Ahh... you meant Mac OS X Leopard: 2nd Edition.

Damn, this is worse than listening to a bunch of Trekkies.

Just pick a number that hasn't been used before!

13 ??

666 comes to mind... ;-)

I'll go with 42.

(forgot that you have to have at least 3 characters in your post)

Ahh... back to John Cleese's Training Videos, eh? :)

Hmm... Microsoft's Ultimate OS. Can't wait.

But that also means that you have to know what the Ultimate PC is. ;)

Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The books are great.

6000 cuz anything with 6000 at the end of it means action.

Because it is the answer to the ultimate question in the universe? :P

They could call it Windows 8675309-Jenny and I still wouldn't wanna talk to it. Vista by any other name is still roadkill in a box.

why ?

I doubt he has any explanation; Vista bashers seem to just parrot each other with no valid reasons.

All the valid reasons are on my home PC: a veritable collection of nasty Vista bugs, incompatibilities and inconsistencies all in one convenient location.

Yes, I'm still using it though, because someone has to learn how to support it. :p

Too bad for you - not my experience at all. Perhaps "news" should be removed the site's name because this article hardly qualifies.

Will they be patenting / Trademarking the number 7?

That could mess up maths for the future generations!

kinda like what apple did with the alphabet by patenting the "i" ...

Did they patent/trademark 95, 98, 2000 or any of the other Windows releases? No, then why ask silly questions.

China has a thing about 8's,
Japan considers 7 quite significant, as do many other places.

Who is the (all but) topless babe?

Not a Star Trek fan I'm guessing. That's 7 of 9, the sex borg they added to Voyager near the end of the series to try and boost the ratings. She was called Seven for short. Her real name is Jeri Ryan.

... and she had the best costume I've ever seen.
I always thought of her character as "6 of 9".

Bill Gates is the 7th out of the 25 most powerful people in business

Other software companies have done this before (giving something a number different than internal version number), but what it all boils down to is... nothing. It all doesn't matter--it's just a version number.

They could have called Windows Vista "XP 2.0", it would still be a new version. They might as well have called it v. 6.12.0G. Don't let it bug you.

Why this is making news is beyond me.

because you are already used to numeric nonsense.

I am a PC...moooo?

You are a PC. baaa.

Hey, I applaud simple numbering. Bet every one of you could name your favorite version of your best software over the years. Windows 3.1.1!! I'd rather have number than years, too. Win95/98/2000, ugh.

Although I use the numbers for Ubuntu, their naming scheme is THE dumbest ever.

Actually, Ubuntu has naming scheme that makes sense. The major version number is the first digit and it indicates the year released. The next indicates the month. This gives 8.04 a time of April, 2008. It gives me as a techie some indication of what new hardware is supported.

He's talking about their dev names...which everyone uses instead of the numbers even after it's public release.

Hahaha. Nice picture of her Chapel Hat Pegs (you may need to urban dictionary that one).

Secret Seven also :)

Numbers crop up everywhere. It's not a new phenomenon.

my vote is call it windows 6.1 cause that's what it is... is windows 8 gonna be 6.2? or 7? They did have a windows 3.1 and 3.11... they had no problem using the point releases in the names before...

for once i think apple's version numbering makes sense! even though i hate everything else apple does... this part of it makes sense...

Most times a major revision goes up a full number while minor one stay within. So while Vista is currently at v6.0.6001 The new major revision would be just what they want it to be v.7.0

Apparently you missed where it said it will be called Windows 7 but the actual version number is 6.1.

Yes, but marketing department want to confuse people because of Vista bad reputation. If Vista is 6.0 and their next 6.1, we can assume that it will not be a good OS, which is the opposite MS want us to believe.
The problems will become next major version (core 7.0)

Confuse who? The tech-heads? Most of us are smart enough to figure it out (and for those who aren't MSFT just explained it). The sheeple? They don't even know what version Vista is...

Just do the math. ;-)
6.1 = 6+1 = 7

Kinda like Herbie was car 53 but in that one movie the kid kept calling him ocho. ;-)

Similar to what Nullsoft did with Winamp.

Winamp 2 + Winamp 3 = Winamp 5.

Oh come on now! We've already been riding out this pointless subject for >100 posts a few articles further down. Thanks but I'll skip...

the numeriology is more international understandable than the spanish word "vista".

so why not just kill/banish/skip 6.1 and just begin with 7 or VII. this was a screwed up year anyways.

also i doubt microsoft would dare consider in the future marketing a windows 13.

the marketing team must have gone to monkey college. microsoft should have stuck with their secret team comprised of fortune tellers and witch doctors. they have more experienced.

I quite like the name Windows VII. Sounds archaic though, which isn't too good.

People might confuse it with vi or the Wii. :)

That is more proof about the usual garbage from Microsoft...

Just changing back from marketing names to numerical, right? No, Windows 7 is Windows 6.1 (really!)!
If they cannot even reflect the correct version number, what can we expect about the product? Let me guess: More garbage.
I just want to believe that Windows 7 is going to be what Windows XP was to 2000 (5.1 vs 5.0).
But, if Vista is 6.0... 6.1 should be... respectable.
Now, to MS: Please stop the marketing BS and start using common sense! What name will Windows 7.0 use? Windows 70? 700? 8? Come on!

This is just a little detail but I think it shows the company philosophy.

windows 007

Because there is no chance that 6.1 could change to 7.0 by the time it goes final, right? It's not even in beta yet. Plus they did name it 6.1 so they can name it 7.0 or 9.1 if they wanted to. There's no rule to what version a release has to be. It's Microsoft's decision, not ours. :P

Please read the article and you will find that the final version will be 6.1 because of "software problems" recognizing newer software versions (in Vista).
I will not work for MS (for free) helping to choose a name for their new Frankie, I am just calling for common sense, pointing the awful company philosophy.
Marketing zealots are well paid to help confusing already harmed end users.

Please read the article and you will find that the final version will be 6.1 because of "software problems" recognizing newer software versions (in Vista).

*laughing*

You are such a troll. Nowhere in the article did it *specify* Vista, but you *had* to add it anyway...

Did you know that even in Windows 98 or NT4, if you went into the registry and changed the "Windows Version" you could make programs (that used that key to verify OS) compatible, just like that?

Vista hasn't got squat to do with it, child.

I am sick to answer to you tool. You seem to be unable even to read correctly, to avoid YOUR confusion, 6th paragraph:

"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," Nash wrote. "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."

It is not MY phrase but MS vice president, right toolie? I am not a troll, kid. Learn to read, then to think and then, only then, open your mouth or press the keys...

It's actually the fourth paragraph of the actual article, but you are correct that Vista is mentioned in the article.

lesson reinforced[/i]

Keywords.

It's not new to Vista, which you seem to be trying to imply, regardless of the article, the truth, or anything but your own bias.

By your posts above...you seem to be under the impression that version numbering issues are new to Vista. That'd be wrong.

[i]I am not a troll, kid.

You can keep saying it. No-one's going to believe a word of it, though.

Se7en

'nuff said. :) ;) ;)

They could set the version number to 6.999999999

And there's always http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/classic/blakes7/

Well, six is afraid of it, 'cause it eight nine.
(Sorry).

*GROANS*

Nice. Wish I'd thought of it. ;)

So 7 means "6.1" and x86 means 32 bits. If so, then please go back to the letters or year number. When you sort out how to count correctly, then use version number.

No, 7 is just the name they are choosing. Does Vista mean 6.0? The name doesn't have to be the same as the kernel version. As for x86, yes it's generally used to refer to the 32-bit x86 architecture as opposed to 64-bit x86-64. Counting has nothing to do with it.

If Microsoft looks back they will no doubt remember that in the golden good days when they created the home computing world they took into account that the needs of the owner of a home computer were very different from the needs of the Administrator of a network.

With ME they lost not only the numbers, but also that perspective, and after that damned moment all their home OS are based in the network idea.

This way classes were born: you are an Administrator of a complex OS created essentially for networks which is difficult to manage for not proffesional people or you are only the user of a dumb machine.

After that the new generations have lost the illusion and the passion for computing that we adults once had, and are not prepared to be the Administrators of any OS. In the long run individual users came to see in the computer something distant and impossible to understand.

IMO in a near future anybody who offers a dumb terminal of Linux or any other type of OS in which all computing efforts are left to a third party network and servers by paying a periodic fee will reach the biggest sales, because young people have come to consider the computer a simple domestic appliance as a refrigerator or a vacuum cleaner, and have no wish of learning anything at all about computing.

maybe because 7th time is the charm? Or they will spin it off to a TV show called 7th Heaven...oh wait...

Microsoft's Marketing Department?

Where'd you find that? The basement of some podunk town in Nebraska? ;)

MSFT marketing is all but non-existent. Hell, they probably came up with "Windows 7" when some coder suggested it (previously employed by Intel in chip design until the Pentium 90 fiasco)... *grins*

As for the implication in the im