Introducing Windows 7

Hi there, Mike Nash here.
For me, one of the most exciting times in the release of a new product is right before we show it to the world for the first time. And that time is right now.

In a few weeks we are going to be talking about the details of this release at the PDC and at WinHEC. We will be sharing a pre-beta "developer only release" with attendees of both shows and giving them the first broad in-depth look at what we've been up to. I can't wait for them to see it.

And, as you probably know, since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."

While I know there have been a few cases at Microsoft when the codename of a product was used for the final release, I am pretty sure that this is a first for Windows. You might wonder about the decision.

The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. 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. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.
We are very excited about the opportunity to tell you more about Windows 7 in the coming weeks, and show you how we have continued to build on investments begun in Windows Vista to deliver on the next release of the Windows operating system.

I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks and months.

--Mike

Source:- http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx


See also: Windows Vista Team Blog : Why 7?

 

[Nez]

And on another note,soon to be released,Vista Service Pack 2.Although no official date yet:

Information about Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 and Windows Vista Service Pack 2

 

[dmex]

And on another note,soon to be released,Vista Service Pack 2.Although no official date yet:

Information about Windows Server 2008 Service Pack 2 and Windows Vista Service Pack 2

Very Interesting Find there Nez...It means they have started -Internal- beta testing of Vista SP2 :eek:

The only reason that KB exists is because SP2 is referencing that article in their SP2 code...

(Revision:2.1) :eek:

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

I kind of like the name "Windows 7" plain and simple and to the point!
Interesting about SP2 also.

@z3r010, you may not have to change the name of the new forum after all.

Thank you both.












Later Ted

 

[z3r010]

Ted the name has already changed to www.sevenforums.com

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

Will it have a direct upgrade to Windows 7 x64 from Vista x64 Ultimate?

 

[dmex]

Will it have a direct upgrade to Windows 7 x64 from Vista x64 Ultimate?

It should do

 

[ripbox]

With a bit of luck.... "ahem" I mean a truck load of luck if Windows 7 is almost bug and hassle free i may well get renamed to Windows Heaven hehe
But what would the chances of that happening be

 

[mike-cow]

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx

I can't stop laughing at their logic... In the end it boils down to this;

"We named nearly all our windowsversions differently, so the logical thing is to stick with the tradition." That's why it makes sense...

Calling Windows NT Windows NT just made sense too, it was just a bit more silly.

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

Most of the ones who did not like Vista had low end old hardware.

 

[mike-cow]

Most of the ones who did not like Vista had low end old hardware.

Yepp, and that's really a big issue for an OS that claims to be a must-have.

 

[Adamd]

Well Microsoft can easily make Windows 7 a success.

They MUST do way more marketing than Vista ever had
They MUST someone get the message out that if you have a 3+ year old computer don't buy it
They MUST not let the release of 7 have as many problems as Vista or they are going to lose a ton of market share once again...

If they can cover those 3 things it should easily be the most advanced and fun OS yet.

 

[z3r010]

Nar windows 7 is far too buggy and bloated, I'm gonna stick with my rock solid Vista

 

[SgtBaxter]

Well Microsoft can easily make Windows 7 a success.

The OS is quickly becoming obsolete as we know it so success isn't necessarily assured. More and more and more, what you do is becoming web based, I wouldn't be surprised if not too far in the future all you need is a dumb terminal and fat pipe.

However that being said, Microsoft needs to grow a pair and dump 32 bit entirely. Don't give me the compatibility BS.

 

[mike-cow]

Well Microsoft can easily make Windows 7 a success.

They MUST do way more marketing than Vista ever had

No. They definetely don't need more marketing. They never really needed that, not even after Windows ME. Even the most computer illiterate people know the "every other version"-rule.

They MUST someone get the message out that if you have a 3+ year old computer don't buy it

Not that either, if they want it to be a real success they need to make it possible to actually USE the OS on a 3+ year old computer. From what I've seen that may even come true.

They MUST not let the release of 7 have as many problems as Vista or they are going to lose a ton of market share once again...

If they can cover those 3 things it should easily be the most advanced and fun OS yet.

Microsoft has NEVER been damaged by problems with the OS. What went wrong with Vista was that hardware manufacturers had problems making stable drivers (and graphics card hardware....). And THAT is what they really need to avoid.

 

[Day24]

Well, as Seven is supposed to use the same driver model, and drivers which work on vista should work on seven, that last one shouldn't really be a problem.

If I use your reasoning, what it boils down to is that because vista introduced a new driver model, and the hardware manufacturers weren't involved in the development of this model early enough (so they could actually start making the drivers early enough), Vista failed. At least, that would then be one of the factors.

And I have to say....I agree.....
You can sort of compare this to Apple's switch to intel, where there was a while where there was hardly any good new software being produced because of the switchover. Except with Apple it didn't hurt their sales....

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Ted the name has already changed to www.sevenforums.com

Yeah, I forgot the old name had "Beta" in it ...

I like that name!









Later Ted

 

[mike-cow]

Hmmm... I went there and found only ONE forum, I feel tricked.

 

[SgtBaxter]

You can sort of compare this to Apple's switch to intel, where there was a while where there was hardly any good new software being produced because of the switchover. Except with Apple it didn't hurt their sales....

I'd liken it less with the switch to intel (since all the software still worked on PPC), and liken it more to dumping OS 9 and moving to OS X.

 

[Brink]

Why 7?

There's been a lot of lively discussion since I confirmed yesterday that the official name for the next version of the Window client operating system will be "Windows 7" about how we got to the number "7."


Read more at the Source: Windows Vista Team Blog : Why 7?