Windows 7 Lets rename windows 7 to what it really is Vista SE

[dzuchowski]

Lets face it windows 7 really wont be released until 2013 or so. Windows 7 beta 1 is just windows vista second edition. Lets get ms to rename as such.

 

[Radenight]

I'm sorry to say but I think this is a really stupid idea.. that will never go anywhere...

 

[reghakr]

I don't think Microsoft wants anything to do with the "V" word.

 

[Kyle]

Seriously?
Sorry to be harsh, but you need to stop with the "7 is Vista with a service pack" bullspit, dzuchowski.
It's getting old, fast, and I'm pretty sure most of us here disagree.
This is like the 3rd or 4th thread of yours with this general idea.
Please, for the love of God, keep it to yourself.

 

[dzuchowski]

Seriously?
Sorry to be harsh, but you need to stop with the "7 is Vista with a service pack" bullspit, dzuchowski.
It's getting old, fast, and I'm pretty sure most of us here disagree.
This is like the 3rd or 4th thread of yours with this general idea.
Please, for the love of God, keep it to yourself.

how is windows 7 not vista with a service pack? 7 is no different then 2000 and xp. the freaking version number of 7 is really 6.1.700 meaning version 6.1 and being .700 is a minor release like a service pack. I do love windows 7 but it is 99% vista, it is not all new. I think it is false advertising calling it 7. So when version 8 comes out are they skipping version 7?

 

[davehc]

"Lets face it windows 7 really won't be released until 2013 or so"
Huh! Which news do you follow?
But I do lean toward your view, with reservation. No need to repeat what I and others have posted in so many other threads.

 

[dzuchowski]

"Lets face it windows 7 really won't be released until 2013 or so"
Huh! Which news do you follow?
But I do lean toward your view, with reservation. No need to repeat what I and others have posted in so many other threads.

what i am saying in your quote is that technically that widows 8 is really windows 7 and technically version 7 is really version 6.1.700 just do a version check on a command prompt...

 

[davehc]

Perhaps you should read up on it a little. And I do recommend you read the other posts, whittling on this subject. A I said before, you would see from my own posts, alone, that I am not entirely disagreeing with you.

If users running Windows XP, are asked, referring back to their ver number, they would be running Windows 5.2. Those with Windows 2000 = Windows 5.1. The average user today probably does not care much on what version number Windows XP or Windows Vista even is. I doubt consumers when they are asked if they are running Windows 7 will go "no, its Windows 6.1". The name of a Windows release isn't always tied to the version number of the OS - especially since no Windows release since Windows 98 (before that, Windows NT 4.0 was the last version-numbered named Windows which came out shortly after Windows 95) had been named after a version number to-date.

 

[dzuchowski]

Perhaps you should read up on it a little. And I do recomend you read the other posts, whittling on this subject. As I said before, you would see from my own posts, alone, that I am not entirely disagreeing with you.

If users running Windows XP, are asked, referring back to their ver number, they would be running Windows 5.2. Those with Windows 2000 = Windows 5.1. The average user today probably does not care much on what version number Windows XP or Windows Vista even is. I doubt consumers when they are asked if they are running Windows 7 will go "no, its Windows 6.1". The name of a Windows release isn't always tied to the version number of the OS - especially since no Windows release since Windows 98 (before that, Windows NT 4.0 was the last version-numbered named Windows which came out shortly after Windows 95) had been named after a version number to-date unquote]
I think M$ should use version numbers instead of names like vista or do like os/2 did os/2 warp! imagine Windows 6.1 Vista SE. I know why they got rid of the year as in windows 95, 98 because it shows how long its been since the last release.... How about M$ holds a loto where 15,000 people worldwide get to do somekind of contest were they have to find some easter egg in Windows 7 and then they get a free 6.1 ultimate and a new version of classic windows 3,11 for netbooks.

 

[Radenight]

I say who the fu*k cares what the version number is....

In my opinion, since Windows 95, all versions have just been repeats that were touched up in certain areas and some things changed around.. their just tinkering with a good thing really.. who knows maybe by Windows 8 or 9 they will have finally mastered the whole 'Windows Concept'.. if you want to call it that.. In which time Microsoft will start developing something else for an OS.. could happen...

My point is isn't that what making an OS is all about.. you build a foundation (Which IMO was Windows 95) then with each continuing version you build upon that foundation.. making changes along the way to ultimately end up at the peak.. which may be Windows 7, but probably not.. I'd say it would be more by Windows 8 or 9..

The version number really doesn't make or break the OS.. common... who cares what version number Windows 7 has.. it's a great working, great looking OS.. that's what matters to me..

As far as which build number the RC has.... I believe someone has already said it.. we'll know when it's released in April won't we...

 

[dzuchowski]

I say who the fu*k cares what the version number is....

In my opinion, since Windows 95, all versions have just been repeats that were touched up in certain areas and some things changed around.. their just tinkering with a good thing really.. who knows maybe by Windows 8 or 9 they will have finally mastered the whole 'Windows Concept'.. if you want to call it that.. In which time Microsoft will start developing something else for an OS.. could happen...

My point is isn't that what making an OS is all about.. you build a foundation (Which IMO was Windows 95) then with each continuing version you build upon that foundation.. making changes along the way to ultimately end up at the peak.. which may be Windows 7, but probably not.. I'd say it would be more by Windows 8 or 9..

The version number really doesn't make or break the OS.. common... who cares what version number Windows 7 has.. it's a great working, great looking OS.. that's what matters to me..


As far as which build number the RC has.... I believe someone has already said it.. we'll know when it's released in April won't we...

odd numbered versions of windows are minor releases so more then likely it wont be until windows 10 or 12 until we see a complete all new no backward compatability with previous windows. I my self do care very much what the version number is. to me a .xx release should cost me less then a full version release like going from 3.1 to 4 of windows. i also think that .xx releases should be just called service packs and the current service packs should be called maintance updates aka bug fixes. i also think ms when they come out with a full version release should never make it compatable with previous releases, to make sure that security issues are then fixed,.... never again will security be an issue. and evey 2 years a full version number should be released. then ms should also offer office intergrated into the os in the ultimate edition only along with a free technet subscription as well and it should sell for no more then $150.00 USA. Then MS should have a version called starter were its just dos and windows is sold as an add on and one can chose which modular parts of windows they want/ if they want real player instead of media player then it comes with real player.... this will counter the windows ultimate with office

 

[Radenight]

odd numbered versions of windows are minor releases so more then likely it wont be until windows 10 or 12 until we see a complete all new no backward compatability with previous windows. I my self do care very much what the version number is. to me a .xx release should cost me less then a full version release like going from 3.1 to 4 of windows. i also think that .xx releases should be just called service packs and the current service packs should be called maintance updates aka bug fixes. i also think ms when they come out with a full version release should never make it compatable with previous releases, to make sure that security issues are then fixed,.... never again will security be an issue. and evey 2 years a full version number should be released. then ms should also offer office intergrated into the os in the ultimate edition only along with a free technet subscription as well and it should sell for no more then $150.00 USA. Then MS should have a version called starter were its just dos and windows is sold as an add on and one can chose which modular parts of windows they want/ if they want real player instead of media player then it comes with real player.... this will counter the windows ultimate with office

Fair enough.. you've obviously put some thought into this.. It's just not something I worry about I guess.. to each his own....

Cheers!

 

[davehc]

LOL. I think I would go along with that. Until I read, in a forum such as this, in the early XP days, that you could type ver and a mysterious number came up - I did not know they even had such numbers!
Like you, not one of my stressful areas.

 

[dzuchowski]

LOL. I think I would go along with that. Until I read, in a forum such as this, in the early XP days, that you could type ver and a mysterious number came up - I did not know they even had such numbers!
Like you, not one of my stressful areas.

i am going grey and bald over the version number thing. I need some pepsi to take the edge off.... why cant ms just use real version numbers, how about we call it MS-Bob!

 

[jimbo45]

ZZZZZZZ
Yawn Yawn Yawn

Reading these type of threads is actually an EXCELLENT Cure for insomnia.

cheers
jimbo