Windows 7 To Be Named Windows 7

Now I have to wonder how many versions?

1) Home Basic
2) Home Premium
3) Business
4) Enterprise
5) Ultimate
6) *?*
7) *?*

Anyone want to guess at #6 and #7? :p
 
lol

then how long until prince sue's :")

6 and 7

6) Ultimate bloated malware edition
7) OMFG! hax0r 1337 edition ?
 
I think it's a bad name.

People comment on how the other names are longer, but they're not.

You can't refer to Windows 7 as "seven". It requires very specific context to be instantly narrowed down.

If I were to say "Vista", or "XP", people know, almost regardless of context, that I'm talking about Windows Vista/XP.

In reality, the new name is much longer then the old ones. 4 syllables rather then 2 as you'll need to call it "Windows Seven" all the time. It's like saying "Windows 3.1" all over again, it just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.
 
Shotglass01 said:
Now I have to wonder how many versions?

1) Home Basic
2) Home Premium
3) Business
4) Enterprise
5) Ultimate
6) *?*
7) *?*

Anyone want to guess at #6 and #7? :p
Click to expand...

One desktop SKU would be genius. Stop milking it, just sell one version and be done.
 
Nemesis999 said:
I think it's a bad name.

People comment on how the other names are longer, but they're not.

You can't refer to Windows 7 as "seven". It requires very specific context to be instantly narrowed down.

If I were to say "Vista", or "XP", people know, almost regardless of context, that I'm talking about Windows Vista/XP.

In reality, the new name is much longer then the old ones. 4 syllables rather then 2 as you'll need to call it "Windows Seven" all the time. It's like saying "Windows 3.1" all over again, it just doesn't roll off the tongue as nicely.
Click to expand...
You speak about Vista or XP in a non-computing context? Jebus forbid you should have to say an extra two syllables!

"As you can see, Windows 7 does this. In addition, 7 has the ability to do that." -- Omigosh, see what I did there? Anything to bash Microsoft, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Me, I'm waiting for "Windows Hello Kitty" edition, so it matches my clothing and my computer case.

Really, would I make this up?

:D
 
I can just about GUARANTEE (someone mark this thread for later), after Windows 7 is released (and adopted) people will refer to it is W7 in the same fashion we refer to Windows XP as just XP.

I think it was a good move by MS by distancing themselves away from the "name" of Vista as it has been bashed for the past 2 years (some of it right, some of it not).

I surely hope they make this 64bit only as I'm TIRED of having pro tools on windows only 32bit.
 
question is, how much did the marketing bod or naming bod get paid for this one
 
I like the fact that they're leaving silly marketing driven names like XP and Vista behind.

I'm not entirely happy with "Windows 7" either, though. I know how the version numbers work out, but most people are completely unaware that XP was version 5.1 and Vista version 6. Few even remember that Windows used to be called 2.0, 3.0 etc. because Microsoft haven't used version numbers in their consumer os's since Windows 3.1 back in 1992.

For consumer OS's, this is how one might see it: Windows 3, Windows 95 (4.0), Windows 98 (5.0), Windows 98SE (5.5), <Windows ME doesn't count and Win2k wasn't a consumer OS>, Windows XP (6.0), Windows Vista (7.0), Windows 7 (8.0). I know those are not the correct version numbers, but that's how you intuitively count the version numbers, or if you include ME (which would have been version 6, not 5.8 or something, because it was marketed as a completely new version of Windows, unlike 98SE), Windows 7 = 9.0.

Not because those are the actual version numbers, but because those are the major updates Windows has recieved, at least from a marketing standpoint, and a major update means a ++1 on the version number. I mean Win2k and XP were not that different technically. But it was XP that brought consumers over to the NT platform and it was a huge upgrade for them, far more than a .1 version number increase would indicate.

Also some people might view Windows 7 as Windows 2007, making it seem outdated even on launch day.
 
450 said:
The 9x line ended with ME. The current line is NT.

Windows 1, 2, 3 (3.1, 3.11), NT 4.0, NT 5 (2000, 5.1 (XP)), NT 6 (Vista), Windows 7!
Click to expand...

almost

but NT was its own kernel set ther was an NT 3 that looked just like Windows 3.11

not sure on early NT ver but id bet there was an NT1 and 2 that wernt part of the 1,2 and then 3 and 3.x kernels
 
No NT 1 or NT 2. MS started numbering the NT versions at 3.1.
 
They could have named it "windows 9" then we could all call it "windows 9, from outer space!"
Come to think of it, in two more revisions we will be able to do exactly that! <wrings hands in a diabolical fashion>


:D








P.S. for you younguns, go look up "plan 9 from outer space"
 
brom42 said:
They should have named it something likne Window 12. I can already see people saying OS X is better because it has a higher number. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Windows would be higher than OS X too, if Microsoft counted their Service Packs as new releases like Apple...

Serpico said:
One desktop SKU would be genius. Stop milking it, just sell one version and be done.
Click to expand...
Actually, that's a bad idea for sales.

Ultimate was $300-or-so retail?

Most people don't want to spend $300 on an Operating System. That's exactly why they came out with Basic (For folks that need guess what: Basics!!!), Home Premium for the folks that just want some extra apps, programs.
Business for business, and Ultimate for the home users that want the business tools, or vice versa.

It makes more sense to buy what you need.

I'd agree for most on here, we'd all love a single version (I know I would), but having cheap alternatives out there encourages buyers to buy, when they usually wouldn't.
 
I m waiting for Microsoft's Sahara experiment where they convince nubs that they love Windows 7 because its so pretty, and then show the highlight reel on tv for the other nubs to see.
 
forcefed said:
Unfortunately they both look identical from all the screenshots i've seen, unless they're going to revamp the interface people will still assume this is another vista when they see it.
Click to expand...

Except that most people wouldn't know Vista if they saw it because they're all sheep who buy into the negative hype that plagues Vista thanks to Apple and the oft-parroted "wisdom" of many uneducated "enthusiasts."
 
This is confusing... I don't get it!
Shouldn't it be called Windows MojaveHorn?
Maybe Double Pane Windows, or Windows to another world. Hmmm or maybe
"From the Windowsssssss to the wall, to the wall, til the sweat drop".. never mind. The Ying Yang Twins already have that one covered. Closed source btw.
 
Wait until you work retail and some idiot asks for a copy of Windows 6 or claims to own Windows 6.
 
it's too bad, that Microsoft's marketing / naming seems to have no math skills

Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3 (and 3.1 and 3.1), Windows 95 (all 3 versions), Windows 98 (and SE), Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista = 8 version intended for consumers, making this Windows 9, not 7, even higher if you include things like NT.
 
It's funny that everyone here thinks they can count version numbers better than the company THAT CREATED THE SOFTWARE.

I'm surprised no one has accused them of ripping off Apple's ideas again (OS 9, OSX, OS 10.5, etc.)
 
dargon said:
it's too bad, that Microsoft's marketing / naming seems to have no math skills

Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3 (and 3.1 and 3.1), Windows 95 (all 3 versions), Windows 98 (and SE), Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista = 8 version intended for consumers, making this Windows 9, not 7, even higher if you include things like NT.
Click to expand...

That was neat, how you just made all that up and ignored the facts.
 
dargon said:
it's too bad, that Microsoft's marketing / naming seems to have no math skills

Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3 (and 3.1 and 3.1), Windows 95 (all 3 versions), Windows 98 (and SE), Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista = 8 version intended for consumers, making this Windows 9, not 7, even higher if you include things like NT.
Click to expand...

it's too bad, that people post without real knowledge sometimes.

Home consumer based Windows have been based on NT technology since XP (or 2000 to some). 9x kernel has been dead since ME.

Going the NT line, it goes 3.11 for Workgroup, then NT4, then NT5 (2000), then NT5.1 (XP, which was Microsoft's first attempt to make 2000 more home-friendly, hence it's still NT5.x) and NT6 (Vista).
 
This is the first sensible name they've had since Windows 4.0. I was afraid they were going to call it Vista 2 or Windows 2009.5 or some other meaningless name.
 
I also would have thought they would have been more consistent with their naming conventions considering they do it to their other product lines like Office 2007. So instead of Windows 7 they could have just said Windows 2009 or 2010.
 
I was hoping for Windows GTX 9800 Pro

forcefed said:
Unfortunately they both look identical from all the screenshots i've seen, unless they're going to revamp the interface people will still assume this is another vista when they see it.
Click to expand...

I doubt most people even know what Vista even looks like.
 
TechieSooner said:
Windows would be higher than OS X too, if Microsoft counted their Service Packs as new releases like Apple...
Click to expand...

Again with this. :)

Repeat after me: the move from OS 10.3 to 10.4 was bigger than the move from XP to Vista.

Good boy.

Actually, that's a bad idea for sales.

Ultimate was $300-or-so retail?

Most people don't want to spend $300 on an Operating System. That's exactly why they came out with Basic (For folks that need guess what: Basics!!!), Home Premium for the folks that just want some extra apps, programs.
Business for business, and Ultimate for the home users that want the business tools, or vice versa.

It makes more sense to buy what you need.

I'd agree for most on here, we'd all love a single version (I know I would), but having cheap alternatives out there encourages buyers to buy, when they usually wouldn't.
Click to expand...

IMO they should roll everything into one single release. No extra price gouging for features, just let it all be one price. I suspect that it would help Microsoft in one way since it would streamline their inventory. No need to manage a bunch of SKUs, just a single one. I obviously have no insight as to their unsold inventory, etc, but added efficiency there might offset the potential loss in revenue of the higher end "Ultimate" SKU if they priced everything in the middle range.

It would be an interesting thing to figure out with a spreadsheet and some sales figures.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top