Windows 7 – or is it 6.1?

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

There’s a lot of speculation about Windows 7 right now but specifics are a bit thin on the ground. Aside from the Engineering Windows 7 blog (which is information rich but makes some of my blog posts look short), as I said last year, pretty much the best place to watch right now is Paul Thurrott’s Windows 7 FAQ (Michael Pietroforte has an synopsis for IT administrators). Come PDC and WinHEC and the ‘net will be awash with Windows 7 news as that’s when developers and journos will finally get their grubby mits on a pre-release version of Microsoft’s latest operating system.

There has been some official news this week though. Yesterday, Mike Nash, Corporate Vice President for Windows Product Management at Microsoft, announced on the Windows Vista blog that the Windows 7 codename will not just be the codename but will also be the actual name for the next version of Windows (I understand that relates to the Windows client operating system and that Windows Server 2008 R2 will be the name for the server release):

“Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We’ve used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or ‘aspirational’ monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista.”

OK, I get it. And Windows 7.0 would make sense for a major update (as Mike explained today in a follow-up post, but I’ll provide a few more details here):

  • Windows 1.0 and 2.0 (Windows 286) existed as products but were not widely adopted.
  • Windows 3.0, 3.1 (codename Janus), Windows for Workgroups 3.1 (codename Kato) and 3.11 (codename Snowball) were the first widely adopted versions.
  • At that time the OS forked and Windows NT (New Technology) was born at v3.1, then 3.5 (codename Daytona), 3.51 (all minor release updates).
  • The original Windows (not NT) 4.0 (codename Chicago/Detroit/Knoxville/Nashville) was called Windows 95 (and there were several variations of this operating system).
  • Windows NT 4.0 (codename Cairo) was the first major update for Windows NT.
  • Windows 98 (codename Memphis) and ME (Millennium Edition) were minor updates from Windows 95 (still 4.x) and then someone saw sense and closed down that product line, merging the codebase back into NT.
  • Windows NT 5.0 was marketed as Windows 2000 (a major update).
  • Windows NT 5.1 (codename Whistler) was marketed as Windows XP (a minor update).
  • Windows NT 5.2 was marketed as Windows Server 2003 (codename Whistler Server) and Windows Server 2003 R2.
  • Windows NT 6.0 (a major release) was marketed as Windows Vista (codename Longhorn) and Windows Server 2008 (codename Longhorn Server).

(See Bitzenbytes for more details of Windows development that I chose to skip over here.)

So far, this all makes sense (at least to me)… but then Mike Nash announced that:

“We decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 – which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.”

So, Windows 7 (codename Blackcomb/Vienna/7) will not be v7.0 (indicating a major release) but will actually be 6.1 (i.e. a minor release). Based on recent history that really ought to fit with a Windows Vista R2 (marketing disaster waiting to happen), Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows 2010 name. Nash continues by highlighting that:

“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, Windows 7 will be more like the move from Windows 2000 to Windows XP/2003, a significant step forward but still not a major update (unlike NT 4.0 to Windows 2000, or XP/2003 to Vista/2008). That’s good – especially for corporate IT departments struggling with Vista application compatibility (mostly through their own lack of foresight it should be noted). I understand why it’s numbered 6.1 internally but why confuse the issue by calling it 7 for marketing purposes?

I have a feeling that Windows 7 will not, despite yesterday’s announcement, be the final product name.

Windows 7 blog launched

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 16 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

After a year of speculation about what will, or won’t, be included in the next version of Windows, it looks like Microsoft might be getting ready to tell us a bit more. Yesterday they launched a new blog called Engineering Windows 7 (thanks to Dave Saxon for alerting me). As the title suggests, it’s all about putting together the next version of Windows and is probably worth keeping an eye on.

Waiting for Windows 7: is Vista really that bad?

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

I was at an event last week where Gareth Hall, UK Product Manager for Windows Server 2008, commented on the product’s fantastic press reviews, with even Jon Honeyball (who it seems is well known for his less-than-complimentary response to Microsoft’s output of late) commenting that:

“Server 2008 excels in just about every area [… and] is certainly ready for prime time. There’s no need to wait for Service Pack 1”

[Jon Honeyball, PC Pro, February 2008]

It seems that, wherever you look, Windows Server 2008 is almost universally acclaimed. And rightly so – I believe that it is a fantastic operating system release (let’s face it, Windows Server 2003 and R2 were very good too) and is packed full of features that have the potential to add significant value to solutions.

So, tell me, why are the same journalists who think Windows Server 2008 is great, still berating Windows Vista – the client version of the same operating system codebase? Sure, Vista is for a different market, Vista has different features, and it’s only fair to say that Vista took some time to bed down, but after more than a year of continuous updates and a major service pack is it really that bad?

This week, IT Week is running a leader on the “migration muddle” that organisations face. Should IT Manager’s skip Vista and go straight to Windows 7, with Bill Gates allegedly saying that “sometime in the next year we will have a new version [of Windows]”?

The short answer is “No!”. My advice is either to move to Vista now and save the pain of trying to jump two or three releases to Windows 7 later, or accept a more pragmatic approach of managed diversity.

The trouble is that Microsoft has muddied the water by dropping hints about what the future may hold. What was once arguably the world’s biggest and best marketing machine seems to have lost its way recently – either maintain the silence and keep us guessing what Windows 7 means, or open up and let us decide whether it’s worth the wait. With the current situation, IT Managers are confused: the press are, by and large, critical of Vista; consumers and early adopters have complained of poor device support (not Microsoft’s fault); and even Microsoft seems ready to forget about pushing their current client operating system and move on to the next big thing.

In all my roles – as a consultant, an infrastructure architect, a Microsoft partner and of course as a blogger, I’d love to know more about Windows 7 – and Microsoft does need to be more transparent if it expects customers to make a decision. Instead, they seem to be hoping that hints of something new that’s not Vista will help to sell Enterprise Agreements (complete with Software Assurance) to corporates.

Windows 7

Posted on By Mark Wilson
This content is 17 years old. I don't routinely update old blog posts as they are only intended to represent a view at a particular point in time. Please be warned that the information here may be out of date.

With the Windows Vista launch now history and the Windows Server 2008 launch date set for 27 February 2008 (expect to see the first service pack for Vista, codenamed Fiji, around about the same time), speculation has started about the next version of Windows codenamed Windows 7, formerly codenamed both Blackcomb and Vienna.

Of course, at this stage, Microsoft is keeping quiet about what’s in, and what’s out of Windows 7 (very wise) but a good place to watch is Paul Thurrott’s Windows 7 FAQ.