Windows 7 release name

[cookie_monster]

Anyone heard any rumors on the release name or do you think they'll go with 'lucky 7'

[m25man]

Is it because it is the 7th release or because it has had 7 years of development?

 

From what I read Vista was two years into development when they had to go back to ground zero and rebuild on XP code.

 

With Windows 7 they had two years of recovered development to add to the normal 5 year development cycle hence Windows 7.

 

Well that was one conspiracy theory.....

 

Maybe 7 was one of Bill's lotto numbers.

[cookie_monster]

From what I read Vista was two years into development when they had to go back to ground zero and rebuild on XP code.

 

Actually development of the XP code line ended with XP SP2, Longhorn (Vista) was canceled while XP SP2 was written as there was too much work for the servicing team to cope with so the development team were bought in and Longhorn was moved on. Vista is actually a fork of the server 2003 (NT5.2) code and became NT6 and now Windows 7 is NT6.1 but in reality the 7th version and i think from the version numbers it will be NT7 on release..

Edited May 4, 2009 by cookie_monster

[m25man]

So Windows NT7 it is then!

 

I'm ok with that!

[mac_shinobi]

They will probably want something a bit better and will most likely end up calling it something like windows Aero

 

Look at the windows 7 requirements

 

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7[/ame]

 

between 16 to 20 gigabytes and thats before installing any software, anti virus, anti spyware or ought else. OS X Leopard only takes about 9 gigabytes

Edited May 4, 2009 by mac_shinobi

[john]

I thoguht it had been declared that it was to be known as Windows 7 end of as that isn't its code name. And its Version 7 of windows, just open command prompt and you will see it shows Windows V7.blarhg just as Vista shows Windows Version 6.0.6001

[cookie_monster]

They stated a few years back that they were ditching the numbers game for the client OS but it looks like they're going back on that then.

 

 

between 16 to 20 gigabytes and thats before installing any software, anti virus, anti spyware or ought else. OS X Leopard only takes about 6 to 10 gigabytes at most.

 

Several Gb of that is device drivers MS decided that with disk size being so massive it wouldn't matter, to be honest i'm fine with that as most of the time you don't have to find drivers.

[torledo]

i reckon i know what they'll call the next version of windows after '7'. they should call it...'Who Cares ?'

[mac_shinobi]

They stated a few years back that they were ditching the numbers game for the client OS but it looks like they're going back on that then.

 

 

 

 

Several Gb of that is device drivers MS decided that with disk size being so massive it wouldn't matter, to be honest i'm fine with that as most of the time you don't have to find drivers.

 

I normally get rid of that when installing because I only install what I really need as the OS X installer gives you the choice to get rid of printer drivers and all the language packs which saves a good 5 gigabytes possibly more as I dont speak or read should I say russian, chinese, japanese etc etc and I sure as heck dont have every printer in existance and nor will I have any intensions of getting all of them lol

[cookie_monster]

That's fair enough, the problem with a general purpose OS is pleasing everyone, it usually can't be done.

[somabc]

It will be called Windows NotVista™

[mac_shinobi]

It will be called Windows NotVista™

 

Windows 8 will require 500 gigs and 4 quad cores just to boot

 

Windows NextVista™©

 

 

[Gatt]

Windows BSOD ?

 

[Simcfc73]

Windows atleastwedonthavetotype12linesofcodetogetaprogramtoworklikeallthedistosfromlinsux

[HodgeHi]

OS X Leopard only takes about 9 gigabytes

 

Snow leopard from the looks of it should be a fraction of this if the rest of the OS is like the application sizes bundled with it.

[mac_shinobi]

Snow leopard from the looks of it should be a fraction of this if the rest of the OS is like the application sizes bundled with it.

 

exactly

[ICT_GUY]

Windows purgamentum?

[kevbaz]

I like Windows Wii

[cookie_monster]

@ John

 

I thoguht it had been declared that it was to be known as Windows 7 end of as that isn't its code name. And its Version 7 of windows, just open command prompt and you will see it shows Windows V7.blarhg just as Vista shows Windows Version 6.0.6001

 

When I open the command prompt on the RC it shows V 6.1.7100

[K.C.Leblanc]

They should call it Millenium Edition.

[Gatt]

It appears even MS don't know -

 

We named it Windows 7 from the beginning, it wasn’t even marketing that originally chose that brand, it was our internal “code name.” The builds were versioned at 7.0. It broke compatibility for too many apps/drivers, so we changed the versioning APIs to report 6.1 to reflect the level of compatibility that should be expected by pre-existing software.

I thought we’d been over this. Windows 7 is Windows 7.0. There are far more important things than driver architecture that change (and hell, there are driver architecture changes in Win7).

So no, there is no “Windows 6.1 kernel” and never was. There’s just the Windows 7 kernel.

 

Windows 7 Kernel version remains unchanged - still 7.0 | Windows 7 Center

 

[torledo]

Windows purgamentum?

 

Windows Purgatory[tm] more like.

[localzuk]

Windows Last Ditch Effort?

[Gatt]

Windows Lisa

[cookie_monster]

Ok so next question. Windows 7 and 2008 R2 are supposed to be the same code base and released at the same time, so is 2008 R2 now version 7 as well