I can't help feeling that, as a name, 'Windows 7' is a bit of a let-down after 'XP' and 'Vista".How about:Windows SevenORWindows Septimus?After Xp, (w), Vista, (u), T... Windows TaskMaster, Windows TaskForce Windows Tango, Windows Tattoo, Windows TeamWork, Windows Tempest, Windows Tempo, Windows Tequila, Windows Threshold, Windows Thunderbolt, Windows Tiara, Windows Tide, Windows Tomahawk, Windows Tomorrow, Windows ToolMaster, Windows TouchStone etc: etc: ? Any other suggestions - there must be some very creative souls out there?Cheers,Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

Well Seven makes sense if you think abut it, Windows 7 is the seventh version of Windows.And I'm curious why is Xp w, and Vista u?

T..., Vista, Xp - skipping two letters at a time `[:-{Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

I did find this which sort ofexplains why its called Windows 7: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10064971-56.html

THanks for that.I guess it's the romantic in me.After Win XP and Win Vista, Win 7 seems a bit bald.Cheers,Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

Pat Garard said: THanks for that.I guess it's the romantic in me.After Win XP and Win Vista, Win 7 seems a bit bald.Cheers, Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia I agree - it does seem a very boring name. Calling it Windows 7 also seems odd when you realise that the software is actually V6.1 (V6 was Vista).

No more vista, It should be called "HORIZON", "VERGE" or "CUSP"

stuigi said: No more vista, It should be called "HORIZON", "VERGE" or "CUSP"But not, I hope, Windows Singularity OR Windows Event Horizon ...... although could that explain where some of my files go?Cheers,Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

3.1, 95, CE, 98, 98SE, 2000, Server 2003, Server 2008, ME, XP, Vista that I know of. Shouldn't it be called 12?

Just Plain "GATES" Not just a window, but an entry to a new dimension

Following the "T" RuleWindows the new 6.0 :P

Windows StarGate??Cheers,Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

Me personally, I couldn't care less what it is called just so it works. The best operating systems that Microsoft had did have numbers instead of names though. But if we must have a "romantic" name how about Corsair or Ouida? Better yet, how about no name or number, just a symbol that can't be pronounced? Nah, just keep the number.

Thunderbolt sounds pretty sweet.

The number is fine for me. We can go on with Windows 8, Windows 9, Windows 10....Maybe we could also take the release year - Windows 2009, Windows 2012....If there is a special name, microsoft had to look all over the world if the name is free. BTW here in germany 'Tempo' is a registered trademark for soft tissues.

Good point, the rest of the T words are probably in use somewhere, but its doubtful that Windows 7 is being used anywhere else. We don't need to pay a higher price for the new OS because Microsoft got sued for hundreds of millions of dollars over a copyright infringement. I think I will copyright Windows 8, Windows 9 and Windows 10 for future use.

Polymer said: 3.1, 95, CE, 98, 98SE, 2000, Server 2003, Server 2008, ME, XP, Vista that I know of. Shouldn't it be called 12? Actually, no.While I'm not sure where Windows Server products fall in the production lineup or Windows CE, the actual version count IS 7. Starting from Windows 3.1: Windows 95, 98, 98 SE, and ME all count as iterations of Windows 4 (I'm not an MS employee, but if I had to give numbers, I'd say 4.0, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.9 respectively). Windows 2000 marks Windows 5.0 as the next major departure from previous functionality (2000 being 5.0, with XP being 5.1 or so, I seem to recall that version number ACTUALLY existing in XP somewhere). While Windows NT was using it's own version numbers before 2000, they do matchup with the Consumer Windows lineup in that way (with NT 4.0 being roughly equivalent to Windows 95/98, and Windows 2000 being NT 5.0). Vista would then be Windows 6 as it is again the next major change in the software, especially given the amount of time before it hit the market.You can also think of it in terms of hardware requirements. Every COMPLETELY new version of Windows calls for a rather large increase in requirements over the previous full version. The requirements from 95->98->ME were not MAJOR, but the jump from those to Windows 2000/XP are pretty drastic. Similarly, the jump from 2000/XP to Vista is also a fairly largeone, and requires a pretty beefy machine compared to the last major release.Also, finally, look at the drivers setup choices for many hardware componenents. Windows 9x products are often linked together, with drivers for 95 being compatible with 98 (though not always backwards compatible, necessarily). Similarly, Windows 2000 and XP are often the same. Vista generally seems to be the next standalone driver type.Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, that's just how I've seen it.