Microsoft I think claimed that's what it is. The 7th version of Windows. But I'm finding that a bit hard to believe. It's not a 7th generation product unless it is of course nothing more than a re-branding of Windows Vista as I have said all along.
Apart from the look and feel of Windows 7 and the behaviour of the UAC crap. There is some good evidence that Windows 7 is just a re-branding exercise. Which if true means Microsoft and it's partners shipped an "alpha" level product and charged full price for it. The evidence is all in the name and the existence of the Mojave "punking" experiment conducted by Microsoft.
So what was Mojave? Well basically it was Windows Vista with UAC turned down or off running on a PC specially configured to be Windows Vista friendly. Microsoft invited "random" members of the public to try it out to see what they thought telling them it was the next generation Windows product. After which Microsoft interrogated it's lab rats until they ponied up the Vista marketing slogan "WoW".
So how do we get to Windows 7 and how does Mojave point to Microsoft and it's partners being lying thieving scumbags? Well all we need to do is examine the Windows family tree from Windows NT4.x on wards since this is the granddaddy of all modern desktop and server Windows operating systems.
So the order goes:
- Windows NT4.x (Windows 4),
- Windows 2000 and Windows XP (Windows 5),
- Windows Server 2003 (Windows 6),
- Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 (Windows 7?),
- Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows ... err ... 7?).
IF Windows 7 really is Windows 7, Microsoft have some explaining to do. Especially since they've released "Windows 7 Beta 1". The implication being Windows Vista wasn't even "beta" software. It was still in "alpha"!
Which in turn means we still haven't seen a release candidate for "Windows Vista ... err ... Windows 7" and Dell along with all of the other Windows PC builders have some refunds to pony up since they shipped a product that was clearly not ready for market and resulted in at least a large and vocal minority being forced to endure all manner of issues.
Windows
Windows 7 is just the same smoke and mirrors game as Windows Mojave. Personally I think all Windows users should teach Microsoft a really hard hitting lesson. Send the message ripping off your user base, your customers is totally out of order. Boycott Windows 7. Hit Microsoft where it hurts.
NOTE: I have left out Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition along with their various incarnations like OSR2 because they were supposedly a parallel code path to NT4.x that basically ended when Windows 2000 and Windows XP were developed from NT4.x.
Quick edit: Just found this link when submitting to Digg.
I'm tired of hearing people bitch. Look at the version number in XP (5) look at the version number in Vista (6). MAKES SENSE WINDOWS 7 is version 7. Now stop spewing bullshit and go hump your mac.
ReplyDeleteAnd in case you want to check, click about in any windows system window (try opening explorer and clicking Help -> About).
LOL I don't have a Mac. I have a Dell XPS 720.
ReplyDeleteNow if XP is version 5 (which I said it was) and Vista is version 6. Where does Windows Server 2003 fit in?
Remember Windows Vista evolved out of the Windows Server 2003 code base. Even though it was meant to be a complete rewrite from the ground up.
You may think I'm talking crap. You can believe Microsofts chronology if you like. But the fact remains Windows 7 isn't the 7th major version of Windows on the NT family tree. If Window 7 is indeed a new version of Windows as Microsoft would like us to believe then it's the 8th version.
If not, Windows 7 is a re-branding exercise. At best it's a service pack to Vista. Not a new OS.
Oh just one more thing. Why the fuck should anybody listen to you?
ReplyDeleteWindows Server is just that, a SERVER OS. Same with NT4 because technically 2000 is version 4 if XP is 5.
ReplyDeleteAnd I never said you had to listen to me, but people should listen to me just as much as they should listen to you.
Ah right so Windows NT4 is actually version 4 then. Even though it followed Windows NT3.75 or some such.
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly does the "4" in Windows NT4 actually mean?
Nobody needs to listen to me. I just blog for the hell of it.
Now if you look at Microsofts version of events it gets even more confusing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistoryProGraphic.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/WinHistorySrvrGraphic.mspx
By the way. Windows NT was and always has been a server OS.
Even more confusion in graphical format.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows
I count at least 10 major versions of Windows there.
Actually wikipedia backs me up, and shows version numbers per OS.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT#Releases
Starting with 3.1
I'll give you this much MS's version history is pretty shady, and I have come across a bit harsh. But have you tried out version 7? And have you seen the screencasts about how the kernel was rewritten to improve performance?
ReplyDeleteYes I have tried Windows 7. I downloaded the beta. Twice. The 64-bit version had issues with VirtualBox.
ReplyDeleteWindows looks like Linux running KDE. Which begs the question. What do we need Microsoft for? Why pay for proprietary software if it's just aping free software?
By the way your Wiki link lists Windows 7 as 6.1. So it's still not NT 7.0 as you might expect.
ReplyDeleteIn fact your Wiki link confirms what many including myself have been saying all along. It's just Vista with a new name.