Rumor smash: Windows 7 will keep 6.1 versioning
Yesterday, Neowin writer Michael Stanclift made some noise about possible versioning changes in Windows 7 after stumbling across an example INF on MSDN (actually sourced from the Windows 7 Beta WDK). Come on, seriously? No, there’s not going to be a last minute change. To even remotely suggest such is ridiculous.
Some points:
- The page in question is clearly marked as being preliminary, i.e. don’t be surprised if it’s wrong.
- No other pages in the WDK state this incongruity. In fact there are plenty of tables and notes supporting the fact that Windows 7 will remain 6.1. Surprise!
- Microsoft has already made the decision to ship Windows 7 code labeled as 6.1. There should be no shock here -- it’s the same action Microsoft took for Windows XP (5.1 vice 6).
- If Microsoft upped the number to 7.0, your precious Mavis Beacon applications may malfunction, inducing panic.
To serve as a sanity check, I pinged Microsoft for some sort of response. Here’s what I got back:
We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. 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.
So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 […].
Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.
so… did any of the whistler betas have a build string of 6.0.x? or was that Blackcomb… [confused]
Good to know that MS has our back [/sarcasm]
just to let you guys know the win7 will be version 7 but the version API will report 6.1.
here im gonna go ahead and name every version of windows
windows 1.x (dos)
windows 2.x (dos)
windows 3.x (dos)
windows nt 3.x (nt)
windows 4.x (windows 95, 98 and me)
windows nt 4 (nt)
windows 2000 (windows nt 5.0) (nt)
windows xp (windows nt 5.1) (nt)
windows sever 2003 (windows nt 5.2) (nt)
windows vista / server 2008 (windows nt 6.0) (nt)
windows 7 (windows nt 6.1) (nt)
if you count it up windows 7 is the 7th nt code released
Good. I will send this article to friends who don’t believe me with 6.1.
In my defense…
Microsoft should have known better. It confuses anyone who doesn’t live “within windows” like Rafael does. “Here is Windows 7, but it’s not technically version 7, it’s version 6.1, but it’s not even the 7th release of Windows… we just like the number 7.”
I tried to make it clear that the MSDN posting was obsure, and could have been a mistake. But, it is interesting. I still don’t quite understand why they’d use nt.7.0 in there and not nt.6.1 … or why it matters that it stays 6.1. Seems like programmers should worry less about what version of the operating system it is, and more about if the OS it’s running on can do what it needs to do. But I’m not a programmer.
Microsoft has stated there is a major announcement coming. To think that this could have been it, is far from ridiculous. Redmond has done some really stupid things before, and changing this at the last minute could have very well become one of them. Until RTM ships, anything can change, for better or worse.
There was no date on the article.
I’m actually the editor, so I should have know better then to jump out with that without doing some more research first. But in a rush to get the information out there I didn’t do the research I should have. For the record, I plan on writing a follow up to that article with my thoughts on the issue after doing some more research. Seeing as you you know quite a bit about these things I’ll probably be tracking you down to explain some of it to me ;)
There are a lot of misprints on the MDSN site, and what does it matter.
If you notice MS is already hiring for Windows 8 code name Windows.
Thanks for getting things straight on this Rafael.
@pizzaboy192: Actually, no Whistler ever had 6.0 as tag, and Blackcomb was never created.
This is the official list from Microsoft, why are we still disputing this stuff?
1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.0 and Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1.
4. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively.
5. Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn’t’ want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.
6. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0.
7. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.
Well, if you pick and choose carefully enough, you can perform numerology on almost anything.
I like the way that people, to get “Windows 7 is the 7th version of Windows”,
a) Ignore all the non-NT versions
b) Treat NT 3.x as a single release, instead of 3.1, 3.5 and 3.51.
Sorry, guys, but if intellectual honesty is worth anything, Windows 7 *isn’t* the 7th version of Windows.
OTOH, it doesn’t really matter, does it?
I think Microsoft, the source of the list I posted, knows what they’re doing. That said, who really cares?
I think 6.1 for the version is ok.
But they should not call it windows 7 give it a year or another name but dont give it a wrong version number.
@Rand, but it is not a version, it is a name!!
they could have called it windows boo and people would complain and whinge that it doesn’t make sense. Why should it, it is a name of a product.
This .1 versioning is all about DOD policy and SDC. DOD policy says anytime you have to increment the major number or the major revision number that you must have a new certificate to operate. Although only a supplement is required when you change the major revision but the difference is about 1500 questions and a one year wait.
It takes about a year or more to work through a full certificate to operate on the DOD network of 1500 plus questions but a major revision change is only about 200 questions. This will ease the time it takes to get Windows 7 certified on the DOD network just in time for FDCC to come around.
So the point number change for all you non-government techies is all about politics. Its just a trick for software developers to stay under DOD policy.
@Josh: I work in the government sector, as my About Me page indicates. Can you point out what this certificate is? Maybe you’re thinking of ATOs? But if so, that doesn’t really care about major/minor numbers…
Microsoft has said over and over again, this is purely for application compatibility reasons.
Truly, Windows 7 is the name of the product that is Windows version 6.1, just as Windows Vista is the name of the product that is Windows version 6.0. It (Windows 7) is just a product name, however the version is 6.1. Version numbers are also arbitrary, as Windows NT 3.1 was actually the first verison of Windows NT. Microsoft chose to use version 3.1 to mimick the version numbering in the “dos” Windows shell.
I admit it also bothers me, though it shouldn’t, that they are calling it Windows 7. I probably could have accepted it easier had they called it Windows Seven. That would have looked more like a name than a version.
@Rafael:
I think he’s referring to the Common Criteria which takes months to get a product certified at a certain level.
the interface of Windows 7 is great but in my opinion Windows XP is still a very solid and stable operating system. Right now, I would never give up XP for Windows 7.
I can’t see why they can’t release “Windows 6.1″ as the return of the version number as the name would make news by itself. They blew it with Windows 5 (2000) and only compounded it with XP (XP what?) and Vista (oh, look out the window to see the vista, stupid!). Windows 6.1 is a return to sanity in version tracking and not cute marketable names (don’t get me started on ME).
As always IMHO, YMMV.
Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows 2003 (NT 5.2) “Server”
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
Windows 2008 (NT 6.0) “Server”
Windows 7 (NT 6.1)
Windows 2008 R2 (NT 6.1) “Server”
Looking above at those “versions”, it makes me want to puke. J/K. But I have to agree with Drew from Dover. It would be so much easier and simpler to use the version numbers again. ME, yeah, that was GREAT! A great disaster that is. The final and worst version in the Windows 4.x series.