Weird: Windows 7 is really Windows 10

Dan Warne
10 February 2010, 5:37 PM

By our count, Windows 7 should actually be Windows 10… did Microsoft avoid it so as not to look like it was trailing OS X?

When Microsoft announced it was just going to call the next version of its flagship OS Windows 7, not "Windows Happy Unicorn with Tinkling Bells and a Burbling Brook" or something, the tech community breathed a sigh of relief.

After several years of being bombarded with Windows Vista hype and promises that never matched reality, that "7" was a gruff acknowledgement from Microsoft that it was time to cut down on the Kool-ade and deliver a better OS.

But is "7" really an appropriate moniker for Vista's successor? Depending on how you count it, it should really be at least Windows 10. For example, here's one list of Windows versions:

1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3/3.1/3.11
4. Windows 95
5. Windows 98
6. Windows NT
7. Windows 2000
8. Windows XP
9. Windows Vista
10. Windows 7

If that's the case, one can only assume that Microsoft felt queasy about labelling its next OS "Windows 10" due to the risk of looking like it was only just getting to the same ground Apple reached with Mac OS X some years ago. (The "X" in "OS X" is read as a roman numeral and pronounced "ten", in a typically pretentious Apple fashion.)

But if you factor in all those rehashed, refried, warmed up re-release versions of Windows that Microsoft's marketing folk have dreamed up over the years, we could well be up to Windows 15. Here's a list sourced from Wikipedia (and this doesn't even include all the minor sub-versions such as Windows 95 OSR 2 or Windows 2.11):

1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows 3.1
5. Windows for Workgroups 3.11
6. Windows NT 3.51
7. Windows 95
8. Windows NT 4
9. Windows 98
10. Windows 98 SE
11. Windows ME
12. Windows 2000
13. Windows XP
14. Windows Vista
15. Windows 7

You can't even base Windows 7's version on its internal Windows kernel number, since it only runs Windows kernel 6.1. Here are some of the Windows kernel version numbers:

1. Windows NT 3.51 - 3.51.1057
2. Windows 95 - 4.00.950
3. Windows NT 4 - 4.0.1381
4. Windows 98 - 4.10.1998
5. Windows ME - 4.90.3000
6. Windows 2000 - 5.0.2195
7. Windows XP - 5.1.2600
8. Windows Vista - 6.0.6000.0
9. Windows 7 - 6.1.???? (the final build number is yet to be decided)

Microsoft does have a reasoning of sorts -- it says in a blog post that it counts all the "9x" versions as version 4, Windows 2000 and XP as version 5, and Vista as 6. Do you agree that this is a rational naming scheme?

Comments

RSS feed

Email alert

BN (New user):

Its the 7th version of the NT Kernel FFS
You guys actually mean't to be professionals/experts

All the other windows were based on the old 9x kernel...which was killed off 8years ago.

Get A Clue....

10 February 2009, 7:10 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Dan Warne (Regular user):

Not according to Microsoft... apparently it's version 6.1. And NT started at 3.1 -- there was no version 1, 2 or 3. (Because it was released alongside Windows 3.1)

10 February 2009, 7:40 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Tin (User):

Oh dear... So quick to point out NT versioning, yet so slow to notice it started at 3.1

10 February 2009, 8:24 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

SLi (New user):

Dan, get a life

10 February 2009, 7:26 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Dan Warne (Regular user):

Haha, thanks for the constructive feedback.

10 February 2009, 7:41 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

shivaBAE (New user):

there are a lot of problems with compatibility

06 April 2011, 9:15 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Halcon (User):

Windows 7 would be the 7th generation of the NT code base, so its appropriate to name that way.
Perhaps it would sound just right to be named MS Windows Version 15.0, not not 7.
Let's see how this goes....

10 February 2009, 7:39 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

straker135 (User):

What about the argument that the extensive kernel and other system changes in Windows XP SP2 actually should have warranted a new vesion number? Had MIcrosoft released it as such, apart from whining about paying for a new version, there wouldn't have been such pointless fussing about the time between Microsoft OS releases.

10 February 2009, 7:54 PM (4 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

I may be wrong, but my recollection is that I saw advertisements for another early version of Windows. I think that it was "Windows 386". That would make Windows 7 actually Windows 11. I think that it sits between Windows 2 and Windows 3 in the list.

10 February 2010, 5:50 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Tin (User):

Quoting petert:
I think that it sits between Windows 2 and Windows 3 in the list.

Yep. There was also a 286 version of that release. They were both 2.1.
But I wouldn't count the .x releases anyway. If you do, you'd have another 7 or 8 this article missed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

10 February 2010, 10:36 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Aubrey (New user):

I suspect that were just hoping that "7" would be their lucky number.

10 February 2010, 8:40 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

kanebt (New user):

This article is so poorly written, so incorrect, naive, ill-informed, LATE, and frankly stupid that I really can't believe it.

Honestly, why would you post this article about two years after the name was initially coined?

The fact that you call yourselves professional technology writers is an insult to your readers.

11 February 2010, 7:52 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (New user):

Quoting kanebt:
The fact that you call yourselves professional technology writers is an insult to your readers.

Well come on, you've got a lot to say, and yet throughout your grizzle you've managed to say nothing. You assumed the superiority, so come on print out all the wisdom you know to be correct? Or could it be your just another gobby noise from the cheap seats.

come one put up or shut up then we can critique your assumed superior wisdom.

11 February 2010, 8:24 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Me In Oz (User):

Quoting kanebt:
why would you post this article about two years after the name was initially coined?

Because APC (and others) know that there is nothing like MS bashing to draw out comments on forums. And lets face it, the usual half dozen MS bashers have not let us down :)

11 February 2010, 8:45 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Your Average Joe (User):

Quoting Me In Oz:
there is nothing like MS bashing to draw out comments on forums

LOL !
Seems like 'MS Bashing' is a distant second to 'Conroy Filter Bashing' at the moment.

11 February 2010, 8:52 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

apt.pupil (New user):

Quoting Your Average Joe:
'Conroy Filter Bashing' at the moment.

Conroy deserves it far more than Microsoft deserves bashing for its weird naming system. Microsoft needs to patch up their exploits. i found one thismorning in Atomic mag which is quite interesting.

It uses an exploit that lets all windows versions(using the NT Kernel) to take advantage of a 16 bit security flaw. That point being set aside-
As long as they do not try any more fancy names(no mor XP, Vista, and similar), i will not moan and gripe over tiny trivialities

11 February 2010, 10:41 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Raindog (New user):

Quoting Me In Oz:
know that there is nothing like MS bashing

Funny you say this given this article is nothing like MS bashing. It's a light hearted piece, nothing more nothing less.

Quoting Me In Oz:
And lets face it, the usual half dozen MS bashers have not let us down

Come say what's burning up inside. Did that nasty Dan Warne make fun of your gamers pride and transgress the unwritten law questioning those oh so important version numbers?
Were folks seen to laugh and giggle at that holy temple of windows worship?

Get a grip? Gamers could have perspective too, but only if they wanted to.

11 February 2010, 8:54 AM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Alphadog (New user):

I laugh at this article, some thinking Windows 7 is in fact 10th or even 11th OS.

Get your facts straight.

1.Windows 1.0
2.Windows 2.0
3.Windows 3.0/NT
4.Windows 95/98/ME
5.Windows 2000/XP
6.Windows Vista
7.Windows 7

Now go and read this before you all embarrass yourselves further:
http://www.microsoft.com/hk/windows7/windowsevolution/

01 May 2010, 1:53 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Tin (User):

You may want to do some more research than just looking at a Microsoft marketing page. Your list (obviously taken from the MS site) is incorrect. NT3 was distinct from Win3 (totally different code base), and NT4 is completely missing from the list.

1. Win1
2. Win2
3. Win3
4. Win4 (aka 9x)
Then we have the NTs.
1. WinNT3.x
2. WinNT4
3. Win2K
4. WinXP/2K3
5. Vista

Win7 is internally known as 6.1, which by the logic in the MS list, is still Vista(.1).

01 May 2010, 2:27 PM (3 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

AlexF (New user):

Quoting Tin:
Win7 is internally known as 6.1, which by the logic in the MS list, is still Vista(.1).

Good observation.. Windows 7 is a marketing exercise 'cause lots of sheep thought Vista was crap because of new graphics model, driver model, UAC and other things they couldn't understand (like not using Administrator account for everyday browsing).
So, with a minor cosmetic modification to taskbar and a name change, those same sheep concluded 7 to be the best OS MS ever created.

06 April 2011, 11:26 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

marko13 (New user):

you lot are terrible it windows 7 cause its the 7th version of the NT kernel FFS you lot dont know wat yor talking bout use yor heads for once

10 October 2010, 7:00 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Treff (New user):

Quoting marko13:
you lot are terrible it windows 7 cause its the 7th version of the NT kernel FFS you lot dont know wat yor talking bout use yor heads for once

It is Windows 7 because that is the name MS has given the specific release of the Windows OS. Why are we all arguing over such a trivial matter? This makes me lose hope for humanity. We are a struggling race when everything must be an argument. All of us in this thread need a break from the technical world, go hiking or camping. :)

07 January 2011, 6:49 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

sukisu (New user):

I have Word 2007 and am trying to use on Windows 10. However, I am unable to save any document.............does anyone have any ideas?

21 October 2010, 7:23 AM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

AlexF (New user):

Quoting sukisu:
.does anyone have any ideas?

Yeah, give yourself a good smack.

06 April 2011, 11:21 PM (2 years ago)report abuse Send to a friend

winnt (New user):

Why did you list DOS-based versions of Windows? Windows 7 is version 6.1, build 760, service pack 1 (6.1.7601). MS probably chose 7 because it is the next integer after 6 and they did not want people to associate it with Vista (NT 6.0) and it is easier for more people to remember the number 7 than 6.1.

16 February 2012, 4:47 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Tin (User):

Quoting winnt:
Why did you list DOS-based versions of Windows?

Because they are counted by MS? They started counting from 3 for NT, so why wouldn't they be included?

As was said 2 years ago when this article was new, no matter which way you count it, Windows 7 is not the 7th version.

16 February 2012, 10:16 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend

Not signed in
	Anonymous user
Login here
Sign up now!

Weird: Windows 7 is really Windows 10

By our count, Windows 7 should actually be Windows 10… did Microsoft avoid it so as not to look like it was trailing OS X?

Related stories

Read more stories about

Comments

BN (New user):

Dan Warne (Regular user):

Tin (User):

SLi (New user):

Dan Warne (Regular user):

shivaBAE (New user):

Halcon (User):

straker135 (User):

petert (Advanced Forumologist):

Tin (User):

Aubrey (New user):

kanebt (New user):

Raindog (New user):

Me In Oz (User):

Your Average Joe (User):

apt.pupil (New user):

Raindog (New user):

Alphadog (New user):

Tin (User):

AlexF (New user):

marko13 (New user):

Treff (New user):

sukisu (New user):

AlexF (New user):

winnt (New user):

Tin (User):