Alex Zaharov-Reutt
Tuesday, 14 October 2008 11:03
Opinion and Analysis
Page 1 of 2
Although XP and Vista were names of Windows that didn’t date the year
after they were launched, Microsoft has gone with “year” names for
Office and server versions of Windows for years. But the previously
codenamed Windows 7 won’t be Windows 2009 or 2010, it will be Windows 7
– and it’s a first!
Although Windows 7 will no doubt be pilloried by Apple for being behind Mac OS X 10.whatever, Microsoft’s decision to go with Windows 7 seems like a pretty good one to me.
The decision was
announced in the Windows Vista Blog by Microsoft’s Mike Nash, who says it’s the first time a “code name” has become the final name of a product.
His blog entry states:
“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.
Please read on to page 2 for the rest of Mike’s blog post, and my additional thoughts.
