Home / News / Software News / Windows 7 Officially Named 'Windows 7'!

Windows 7 Officially Named 'Windows 7'!

Gordon Kelly


Windows 7 Officially Named

Want to know what Windows 7 will be called and - perhaps more importantly - why? Here you go...

Speaking from the Vista official blog, corporate VP of Windows Product Management, Mike Nash spelt everything out:

"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'," he explained. "But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, 'Windows 7'."

And the Why? It's fairly long, so dig in:

"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."

To be fair, credit to Microsoft here it does just make sense and the company can indeed point to early Windows versions where this numbering rang true. On the other hand, it is plainly obviously that Microsoft is conceding to the Mac OS X-esque approach but given its move to replicate Apple's more incremental approach with regular OS updates this is also understandable.

Besides, isn't the sign of a company looking to improve that it isn't afraid to borrow ideas from those doing things well? Maybe, just maybe, 'Windows 7' shows Microsoft has just taken the first of a great many steps it needs towards getting back on track... humility.


Blog Post

James Rounce

October 14, 2008, 5:36 pm

But doesnt that mean Mac OS is better because it is 10?


October 14, 2008, 5:43 pm

It's going to be called Windows 7! Imaginative.

Robert Elliot

October 14, 2008, 6:13 pm

For anyone else sad enough to be interested in what they consider to be a version, looking at this Wikipedia page:


Version 4:

Windows 95

Windows NT 4.0

Windows 98

Windows ME

Version 5:

Windows 2000

Windows XP

Windows Server 2003

Windows Home Server

Version 6:

Windows Vista

Windows Server 2008

Azad Miah

October 14, 2008, 6:48 pm

So it is officially &#8220Windows 7&#8221? Who gives a cucumber!? I remember there were so much hullabaloo about Vista and how it was going to revolutionise the whole &#8220personal computing experience&#8221! Microsoft, with its bad joke called Vista, has wasted so much of people&#8217s precious savings and hours and hours of their time. In the end, after so many delays, what Microsoft released was nothing more than some fancy graphic works.

Microsoft should really not bother with the next Windows because I intend to use XP for the next 200 years. As for other people, well, after losing their homes, their pensions and all their savings, I don&#8217t think anyone will be rushing to get their wallet out for Microsoft. Bread, milk and utility bills will take priority over &#8220Windows 7&#8221.


October 14, 2008, 7:06 pm

bring it on - I've been supporting Windows since Windows 3

confirming the name raises awareness - key for any product launch as massive as a new version of Windows.

Azad - don't fall for the hype....most people who make comments like yours really do not have all the facts...

p.s. use Vista, Love Vista


October 14, 2008, 7:15 pm


Vista works fine for me and always has done! Most of the people with Vista issues are people who installed it on ageing hardware and hardware that had no Vista support.

And PC's that come with it pre-installed are absolutely fine.


October 14, 2008, 8:17 pm

All i want is an OS that is stable, secure, works with pretty much all software out there, incl.third party stuff and doesn't slow my system noticeably. As far as i'm concerned, for the time being i'll stick with XP. MS seems to have a habit of investing too much money in essentially rubbish, namely VISTA from what i hear!! ( not been pursuaded to even try out VISTA, as all the comments about it, i've heard are negative!!).Seems MS could take a few huge leaves out of APPLES book!!


October 14, 2008, 8:22 pm

There is a metric s*/tload of bad hype around Vista, but almost all of it I've never seen! I "borrowed" a copy of Vista to try out a couple of weeks after it was released on my 4 year old hardware to see what it was like. Started dual booting with XP, and liked Vista so much that I deleted the XP partition and bought a legit copy. I might be lucky in that I've never had a hardware incompatability (and am using 32 bit which might help) but Vista runs a LOT more stable on my 4 YEAR OLD (MIDRANGE WHEN BOUGHT!) HARDWARE that XP ever did! Sure it may slow down a little bit here and there, but a cheap 4GB ReadyBoost USB key helps a lot more than I thought it would!


October 14, 2008, 8:22 pm


Or there are people like me who bought a new computer with Vista installed but found out their Vista-compatible anti-virus (Kaspersky) was giving them a blue-screen. Sometimes the 3rd Party software developers are just as much to blame.

(Since I installed an update last month no more BSOD's, and as you say Vista works fine for me now)

Azad Miah

October 14, 2008, 8:33 pm

With respect, I disagree with HSC and Steve. I used to repair PCs; we used to get loads of new PCs with Vista pre-installed and they suffered from endless problems. Ageing hardware may cause some of Vista&#8217s problems, but those computers were brand new models that came out soon after Vista. Those models were manufactured specifically for Vista and they still suffered.

Whatever the case, guys, people will think thrice before buying another Windows.


October 14, 2008, 8:40 pm

They should have called it "Windows Sorry".


October 14, 2008, 9:04 pm

Honestly, I dont get why is Vista being singled out.

I mean when XP came out, it was given the same kind of treatment suggesting that it was merely a graphic makeover of 98, but a few years later, when the hardware caught up with it, and all software became compatible, people realised it was a major improvement over older versions.

Once you start using Vista you realise, its a lot faster, efficient and yes it is PRETTIER, and since when is that a bad thing..isnt that what Apple and Steve Jobs use to con people out of their money..by giving them old technology and ageing software under a pretty little GUI. I mean credit to Microsoft for trying to make things easier on the eye.

Whoever cribs about Vista probably installed it more than a year back, and doesnt quite appreciate the improvements made by MS in that time, or still is trying to run it on old hardware.

Get better hardware and you will see Vista perform really well.


October 14, 2008, 9:11 pm

roll on "Windows 7".. I just hope Microsoft don't get greedy and charge through the nose for an upgrade disc like they done with Vista.

Not many will justify spending over &#163100 for an OS upgrade. &#163 50 is a more reasonable price point.


October 15, 2008, 12:52 am

OK Vista has a larger footprint than XP and requires more system resources, yes there are lot of release 1 issues with Vista. These issues don't make Vista a bad operating system. In my experience all OS's require optimisation, both in the form of user configuration and and vendor software updates. Vista is no different in this regard. In fact I would say it is easier to configure and optimise Windows than Mac OS or Linux. When you add hardware support to the equation Mac OS and Linux are at a major disadvantage. Windows XP's days are numbered, there are feature we will need that it doesn't/will not support e.g. multi-touch, UDF 2.5+, etc. XP loyalists will need a slice of humble pie with that copy of Windows 7 - but you never know the open source community might just prove me wrong...


October 15, 2008, 2:20 am

Sure Vista may be more modern and "better" in some respects than XP especially on new machines but for the vast majority of existing XP installations it offers no compelling reason to upgrade -- yes more eye candy, but hardly any new function, an iritatingly confusing set of editions and it's expensive to buy for upgraders. MS need to understand that OSes are fast becoming commodity items - realistically an average user can get all the functionality they need now (Linux, OpenOffice, Firefox) - why pay more. The only problem is the retail MS hegemony prevents them from knowing this (Linux based Eee PCs and the like excepted).

comments powered by Disqus