Hi to all here :-)I haveaquestion:I have installed Windows "7" on my NetBook and it's great! But I have noticed it's version listed as:6.1.7000We all know that the "6" reflects changes in the "core" of the system and the "1" improvements onotherareas.We all know the following history:20xx Windows 7 (NT Version Number: 6.1.xxxx) ?????===================================================2006 Windows Vista (NT Version number: 6.00.xxxx)===================================================2001 Windows XP (NT Version number: 5.1.xxxx) 2000 Windows 2000 (NT Version number: 5.0.xxxx)=================================================== 2000 "Windows" Me (Version number: 4.90.xxxx)1999 Windows 98 Second Edition (Version number: 4.10.xxxx) 1998 Windows 98 (Version number: 4.10.xxxx)===================================================1996 Windows NT 4.0 (NT Version number: 4.0.xxxx)===================================================1995 Windows 95 (Version number: 4.00.xxxx)===================================================1994 Windows NT 3.5 (NT Version Number: 3.5.xxxx)===================================================1993 Windows for Workgroups 3.11===================================================1993 Windows NT 3.1 (NT Version Number: 3.1.xxxx)===================================================1992 Windows for Workgroups 3.1 1992 Windows 3.1 1990 Windows 3.0 1987 Windows 2.0 1985 Windows 1.0So if NT version number in Windows 7 is actually 6.1, then simply Windows 7 is NOT Windows 7! It's Windows 6.1Any comments?Thanks

You are correct sir!

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprogeneral/thread/070283e8-2b57-4c6d-8a17-d41abb21a55a

Somewhere in the Windows 7 Engineering blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/) was a good reason as to why Windows 7 has a version number of 6.1. It had a lot to do with drivers and application that make a very specific query to the OS version prior to loading. If Windows 7 was actually version 7.0.000, a lot of apps would break because of the internal versioning. At least that is how I understood it.

It uses version 6 of the kernal.

Can actually someone from Microsoft answer this?If the Kernel has actually remained as version 6, that means that it has not been changed since Vista!Has the Kernel been significantly changed or not?If the kernel is still version 6 then Windows 7 have absolutely and definitely not a single right to be called "7" because it has NOT been re-designed!Is the version 6 only used for the Beta release and will further change to 7? (I do not think so).So why Windows 7? Just another rushed marketing gimmick to save the Vista "failure" to "launch"????I have been using and supporting Windows since 1990 and I am EXTREMELY disappointed!

The reason is deceptively simple: because many, many applications query based on major version only, and don't care about minor version. Windows 7 is designed to be as backwards compatible forVista applications made by millions of companies.Applications will work fine on Win7 because they work fine on Vista, and by making sure theOS major version returns version 6, most ofthose applicationsshould install without need for updates from their vendors or errors that 'must be installed on Vista'.If the vendor really did want it to be Vista only and not install on later or earlier OS's, they will have hopefully coded their install for 6.0.As for the other question - yes, there have been significant kernel changes. Check out these great developer chats on the subject (not a complete list, we still have some surprises in store):Mark Russinovich: Inside Windows 7Dave Probert: Inside Windows 7 - User Mode Scheduler (UMS)Chittur Subbaraman: Inside Windows 7 - Service Controller and Background ProcessingNew NUMA Support with Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, PM TalkI never understand the beefing about the name '7'. Why does this matter to so many people? NT 3.1 was actually the first versionof the product (it was called 3.1 because of the brand name recognition of Windows 3.1 aka Windows for Workgroups). Ubuntu Linux is currently called version 8.10, with a kernel version of 2.6. Not sure why all this would be disappointing to anyone. Ned Pyle [MSFT] - MS Enterprise Platforms Support - Beta Team

It's the same problem with Windows 95/98/2000 - those numbers don't match their version either, yet no one bothered to point those out.

Well, the difference between Ubuntu and Windows is that Ubuntu takes its version-number from when it's released, not its kernel. So, if this 7-beta would follow that convention, it would be named Windows 08.11 (or 09.01?). Still, is it really the seventh variant of Windows? We could of course just read the '7' as a product-name, though it'd be pretty silly and anonymous. Maybe MS just thought 7 is a pretty glyph, and found themselves with no excuse whatsoever to call it Windows 07?

"20xx Windows 7 (NT Version Number: 6.1.xxxx) ?????"It is all very simple - Version 6.1. Add 6 plus 1 and you have 7! ;-)

The label "Windows 7" is just marketing hype.It is useless to try to make sense out of something inherently illogical.

george-london said: Dear MikeP364Have you EVER done any kind of programming? Or even maths? Since when 6 POINT 1 EQUALS 7 ????Easy does it, george. I was just injecting some levity into atrivial thead.Actually, I've written code in COBOL and BASIC back in the day.

It is all very simple - Version 6.1. Add 6 plus 1 and you have 7! ;-)For what it's worth Mike, that made me chuckle. :-DNed Pyle [MSFT] - MS Enterprise Platforms Support - Beta Team

Dear MikeP364,Sorry about that. I did not "get" it... lol Stupid me. I am sorry.I did COBOL and BASIC back in the days too :-) Hey! Fun wasn't it?So maybe is Microsoft that is not too good with maths then... 6.1=7 Yeap!As for the excuse of "Windows 7 is designed to be as backwards compatible forVista applications made by millions of companies.Applications will work fine on Win7 because they work fine on Vista, and by making sure theOS major version returns version 6" I am just not buing it!ALL Microsoft OS were supposed to be backwards compatible.Does this mean that we should have kept windows version 1 on the kernel?Windows 7 is simply the "correct" version of VISTA. Vista was rushed in the market just to pump MS Shares up in the time that Bill Gates was leaving and proved a disaster worst than Windows ME! (By the way, my AMSTRAD 6128 was better than Windows ME)....Now that they fixed VISTA (finaly) they promoting them as Windows 7 again to pump shares up a little bit.Lets wait and see what they are going to name the windows with kernel version 7.0.0000Maybe "Windows 8 minus 2 halfs"

Dear Ned PyleThank you for the answer. I am not comparing UBUNDU kernel versions with Windows Kernel Versions. Microsoft was the one that set the kernel versions numbering in the first place. Vista was supposed to be backwards compatible. Should then be coded 5.2.0000? No! It was coded6 because the kernel has either been completely redesigned or extremely modified! This is not my idea but a trend and tradition that Microsoft has over the years firmly set. And if I remember well, when Bill Gates announced Windows 7, he said that they are called 7 because 7 is the "naturally" the next version of Windows KERNEL. But no! it's not...So does also your answer suggest that when the next generation of windows come out with kernel version 7.0.0000 that NOBODY should rush out and buy it as by your definitition it will NOT be backwards compatible? I will make a note of your answer to quote it when I will need to write an article about your next OS. Just to keep people clear for a while....So if Windows 7 kept kernel version 6 to be "backwards compatible" can you explain to me why several applications designed for vista, including Microsoft's OWN Live One Care, do NOT install in "windows six plus 1"?So, what will Windows with kernel 7.0.0000 will named? Windows 8 minus 1?Windows 7 is clearly the "final" version of Vista and it should be just named accordingly. Such as Vista"light" and do some nice thin lines on the box and explain it's called "light" as it consumes less resources than Vista.Vista as we all know was rushed to pump Microsoft shares up at the time when Bill gates was getting ready to leave... And when it proved a disaster similar to Windows ME, Bill Gates rushed to announce Windows 7 just to make people "forget" about the disaster of Vista and wait for 7.With marketing tricks like that you will keep loosing customers and customer trust. Personally I have been using DOS and Windows from the very first day that they came out! All the way back to the very first DOS... I have been supporting DOS and Windows products all my life.I have ignored disasters like Windows ME and Vista... But this time and after all these years, it is the first ever time when I saw the 6.1 on the kernel that I cracked. And I am not alone.Problem is that I have been asked to write an article about Windows 7 and I am not sure what the title will be... Maybe, Windows that would love to call it self 7? Windows almost 7? Windows not 7 yet? Windows 7 minus 0.9? Windows7 minus 1 plus 0.1? Windows 3.1 plus 3? Not sure yet!Please, please pass this message on to the developers team. Thanks

A few points:There has never been a Windows kernel that has been completely redefined - only brand new ones for new operating system lines, then incremental changes. This is the way of all operating systems.Vista was in many ways not designed for backwards compatibility with XP - it was an architecturally dramatic change in a number of ways. For example the graphics display system; XP and older video drivers were in no way compatible with it. Hence the need to make a watershed Kernel version change forolder apps to be dissuaded from installing. This is a major reason why many applications did not play well on Vista. But Vista itself did not have a completely redesigned or even extremely modifiedkernel.As someone who spendsa fair amount of timein a debuggerand the source code looking at user-mode and kernel-mode Windows 7, Vista, XP, 2003, 2008, and 2000issues, I can speak from my own experience as well.As I said previously, Windows 7 trying to be as compatible as possible with Vista does not make it perfectly compatible; it's a series of compromises and best effort. That's why you have seen some applications that still do not work. Sometimes their developer (like the Live One Care team) feel that because the Win7 product is in beta and is not complete, they would rather not deal with trying to support it. So they block their applications from installing and having to handle support issues for an incomplete OS (or least one that is not even in RC status yet). That's their prerogative.And sometimes in order to improve the product, or through bugs, older software just doesn't work on newer operating systems. Windows is still by far the most backwards compatible OS in the history of OS's - no one else is even slightly close.I encourage you to think and write whatever you like about the future and the kernel versions - but you will have to wait and see like everyone for the next version of Windows; I'm confident that Windows 7 will speak for itself when it releases. If your main complaint is simply the name '7'... well, talking to developers or me will get you nowhere. That's the marketing team you should be yelling at. :)(And for the record, 5.2 is the kernel version of Windows Server 2003 - so that wouldn't have flown very well :) ).Thanks for your feedback. I look forward to reading your article. Ned Pyle [MSFT] - MS Enterprise Platforms Support - Beta Team

Plain and simple answer, the .1 versions have been the real winners in the windows line up :P

NedNot yelling at developers as I know that they are the ones that work 24-7 to get the sales team (that sit on their pretty desk all day drinking coffee and chatting about their expensive cars) happy! ;-)Now I think I have resolved my own question in a different way.As you correctly pointed out, Windows NT version 3.1 was actually the first version of "Windows New Technology". This kernel should have been named 1 but it was not in order to "mix" with the other Windows versions and not confuse the market.If we only count the NT versions that ever existed they are 6 so far (including Vista).20xx Windows 7===================================================2006 Windows Vista (NT Version number: 6.00.xxxx)===================================================2001 Windows XP (NT Version number: 5.1.xxxx) 2000 Windows 2000 (NT Version number: 5.0.xxxx)===================================================1996 Windows NT 4.0 (NT Version number: 4.0.xxxx)===================================================1994 Windows NT 3.5 (NT Version Number: 3.5.xxxx)===================================================1993 Windows NT 3.1 (NT Version Number: 3.1.xxxx)===================================================Maybe - just maybe- after all this is what Bill Gates meant (I just hope) that 7 is "naturally" the next version of Windows as he most propably did not count all other DOS based "Windows".Maybe - Just Maybe

george-london said: Maybe - just maybe- after all this is what Bill Gates meant (I just hope) that 7 is "naturally" the next version of Windows as he most propably did not count all other DOS based "Windows".Maybe - Just MaybeDefinitely - just definitely!! Have you only just realised that W7 is the seventh (desktop) version of the NT family?In any case, I still can't understand your concern. Who gives a damn what the marketing name is?As has already been explained, Microsoft made the decision to keep the kernel version at 6.x because they're very concerned about application compatibility with Vista.And yes, W7 is obviously the seventh desktop version of the NT-based OS, so although it's a stunningly boring and unimaginative name, it is clearly correct.But even if it weren't, who cares? Lots of vendors jump version numbers or launch products with a version number other than 1. It's just marketing and, frankly, is completely irrelevant. They could call it "Vista 2" or "Windows X" or anything else for all I care.

Actually is only the 4th kernel change of Windows NT.But the 7th "version". So my first question was right and I am not the only one that has asked it all over the world.I did not just realized that this is the 7th version of Windows NT... If you read my posts I was one of the first people to test and write an article about Windows NT 3.1 when first released.Everyone had expected the kernel to be version 7 as a change of a kernel means a lot.And I do not agree with you. 7 is actually a FANTASTIC name. To start withthroughout history number 7 has been a considered a lucky almost mythical number.7 is simple. And simple is elegant and sophisticated at the same time.What would be very nice in the future, would be to name Windows based on KERNEL version such as Windows 7 or 8 or 9 but all the subversions such as 7.1 8.1 or 8.2 with animal names as apple does so the windows 8.1 could be "Windows VIII Tiger"The name of just 7 I think is just an extra genius idea. I was just hoping that we would have seen the kernel change to 7 too and that was my question in the first place.

Sheldon...er...um..I mean George...I have to ask - if, as you say, "They could call it "Vista 2" or "Windows X" or anything else for all I care,"implies you do not care about version naming, then why the heck did you even continue with the argument beyond Ned's reply? Just wondering. ;)

I think I already aswered that:For the simple reason that we would like to see kernel 7 to be named Windows 7... and not kernel 6 and sub-version .1 to be named Windows 7.I think this has been a discussion all over the world and in several articles in IT magazines online and offline. Just goggle it and you will see that I am not the only that was hoping that Windows 7 would mean a change in kernel.And my suggestion was that future versions should always be called by the number of the kernel and the subversions such as .1 or .2 to be name coded. For example version 8 of kernel should be called say "Windows XIII" and sub-version .1 could be called "Windows XIII Eagle" or kernel 10 "Windows X" and subversion .1 "Windows X Hawk" (Microsoft could use birds instead of wild animals to name their systems.Windows 7 was a wonderful (and nowlost) opportunity for Microsoft to end the era or random names and confusions such as the Windows 2000 and Windows ME issued at the same time making the SIMPLE consumer (NOT I.T. pros of course) wondering that if 2000 and Millennium is one and the same then why 2systems with the "same" name out at the same time. I had a hard time explaining to customers what the difference was as they only think they could see was a huge difference in price and not the "real" difference.I never said I cared about the name. They could be called "Windows with loads of walls" or "Windows into a black hole" for what I cared.But whenthe current kernel version is 6 (vista)and Microsoft announces Windows 7 everybody just expected to see kernel 7when a "ver" was run.How much more simple, straight forwardand PROFESSIONALLY CONSISTENT will it be for everyone if the Windows versions were named based on the kernel version and all sub-versions with a code name.Why do we IT people have a nerd-inherited disfunction of designing and even NAMING products in the most stupid and confusing way possible? I have NEVER come across one IT person that can design simple code or even a simple network! Everything has to be illogical and complicated!Because Windows 7 with a kernel of 6 just adds to the confusion AND to the life-long consumer MISTRUST of Windows new releases! (Or you pretent that you never seen mistrust in Microsoft OS's from 99.5% of CONSUMERS when they were released). Or why do you think that vista SP1 had to be rushed? Because the launch of Vista was just not trusted as everyone knew that it was rushed and plagued by mistakes and delays....I think this disscussion should now be closed.Thank you all.PS. If Microsoft thinks that the above naming suggestion is remotely correct, then I really think for the sake of simplicity AND mainly CONSISTANCY, the above model could be adopted from kernel 8.Thank you all.