Comments on: Why Windows 7?

By: VISQI

VISQI — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:27:22 +0000

hey Matt
listen man, i know that this isn’t related to the article, but iam a freshmen student in college and i really want to pursue a career in game programming, so please contact me through my email: generalsnake@gmail.com
so i can talk to you more about this thing, i really need some guidance here
Thank you very much

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:46:53 +0000

They should add DOS versions in there too–

1-6 == MSDOS
7 = Windows 95 (actually reported it as DOS 7.0 for a while)
8 = Windows 98
9 = Windows ME
10 = Windows NT 3.1
11 = Windows NT 3.5
12 = Windows NT 4.0
13 = Windows 2000
14 = Windows XP/2003
15 = Windows Vista/2008
16 = Windows 7

So really, it should be Windows 16.

By: C

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 06:05:30 +0000

Windows NT = 4
Windows XP = 5
Windows Vista = 6
Windows 7 = 7

The server versions of Windows probably don’t matter to the consumers of Win7. And besides, a server version is usually launched alongside a non-server version, and share a great part of the NT kernel.

By: Bill

Bill — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:19:24 +0000

Its because they are counting good versions of windows, consumers don’t care about kernel versions or all versions just good versions. Thus:
Windows 3 = 3
Windows 95 = 4
Windows 98 = 5
Windows 2000/xp = 6
Windows vista/7 = 7

Windows 7 is what they hoped 7 would be in the first place, thus the name.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 02:55:32 +0000

It’s because NT 3.1′s version was synchronized to the current version of Windows — then 3.1.

So we have (in the NT series):
Windows 1 == Windows NT 3.1
Windows 2 == Windows NT 3.5
Windows 3 == Windows NT 4
Windows 4 == Windows 2000
Windows 5 == Windows XP
Windows 6 == Windows Vista
Windows 7 == Windows 7