Windows 7 Needs to Be Windows 6.1
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 17.10.2008
Tip: Click here to update all your PC's outdated driversAt the start of this week Microsoft revealed that for the next iteration of the Windows client, the codename, product number and official label would be one and the same: Windows 7.
At the same time, Mike Nash, corporate vice president, Windows Product Management, indicated that the Windows 7 moniker would have no impact over the actual version of the Windows code. In this context, Windows 7 turns out not to be Windows 7 at all, but actually Windows 6.1, the successor of Windows Vista which is v6.0. Steven Sinofsky, senior vice president, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, explained that Microsoft meant for Windows 7 to be Windows 6.1.
"As we started Windows 7 we chose to keep the major version number at 6 so as to maximize compatibility for third party developers. This is really about our commitment to compatibility. And as you have seen with past releases, the major/minor nomenclature for the qualitative aspects of the release don’t necessarily line up with the numeric designations. What you’re seeing with Windows 7 is just a deliberate focus on compatibility over version number vanity (just as you saw with the “major” release of Windows XP)," Sinofsky stated.
The head of the Windows 7 project explained that Windows 7 needed to be Windows 6.1 because of all the software solutions, with an emphasis on setup programs, were tailored to a specific Windows version. In this context, an application or a driver that is hard coded for Windows Vista will fail miserably to install or run under Windows 7, if the operating system features version 7 for its code. Not the same is valid for Windows 6.1. Essentially, all software packages that support Windows Vista will automatically support Windows 7 (Windows 6.1).
"Many folks have done the math to explain why we chose the name Windows 7 – this is because Vista is version "6" of the Windows product line (Windows 1, 2, 3 on 16 bits, Windows 95 was version 4, then Windows 2000 was 5, XP was 5.1, Vista was 6). So we chose "7". (This doesn’t count 98, 98 SE, Me, and of course NT 3.1/3.51 but they all fit in)," Sinofsky added.
source:
news.softpedia.com
>> Click Here to Run a Free Scan for PC Errors <<
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Windows 7 RC Brings Windows XP Mode Beta and Windows Virtual PC Beta || Windows Reactivator 2.0 - Backup & Restore Activation Status of Windows XP with Windows Reactivator || Week in Microsoft: Windows 7, Windows 8, Windows 9 || Internet Explorer 8 MUI packs for Windows XP, Windows Server 03 || Windows Home Server Power Pack 3 Beta adds Windows 7 support
Comments(8)
it must be vista sp2
hi peter, i see you don't understand anything about os's. well done.
and you know anything about os's ? i don't think so. vista is running 6.001 so i agree
with peter this should be a patch and not a new os. when i look at the beta 1 version i
dont see much diffrent between vista and windows ''7''
windows 7 was way too similar to vista, so 6.1 is what it really is
there will be vista sp2 and windows 7 released next year. they are not the same thing.
windows 7 will be the long awaited final release of vista with most of its bugs fixed
he, me neither, i dont understand anything about os's.
once again a tric from microblows to revamp the sales figures of their most overbloated
most bugged os ever made.
only my humble opinion.
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Windows 7 Needs to Be Windows 6.1
By Peter on 18.10.2008 - 09:10