Member log in

Microsoft defends "Windows 7" moniker

A month ago, it looked like Microsoft was succeeding in its attempt to refashion its image. A series videos, starring company founder Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld, seemed initally obtuse, but ended up winning the hearts and minds of the chattering classes. It seemed Microsoft had "got it" with a post-modern, hip message for the media-saturated generation. Now, it's not only Apple that appreciates a little deadpan cool can go a long way.

Or so it seemed. 

Yesterday, the company announced that Windows Vista's successor, code-named Windows 7 (and due for alpha release on October 27) will be called ... Windows 7.

The colourless decision drew a barrage of criticism.

But could it be that the very straightforwardness of "Windows 7" is merely the latest expression of Microsoft's newfound droll sense of humour?

No, going by an excruciating blog post by Microsoft Windows Product Management Vice President Mike Nash, which seems to indicate that techies hijacked the naming process, striking on the unremarkable technique of counting the number of previous versions:

"The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

"Here's where things get a little more complicated.  Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0.  Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

"Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

"That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0.  So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases."

Okay, thanks Mike. So much for the $US300 million rebranding campaign.

More by By Chris Keall

Comments and questions
4

What a stupid article... Is there nothing else to write about than to attack a product name? I like things simple - at a good restaurant, if it's a grilled halibut with conconut rice, then it will say it as such... apparently this writer is the type that likes names like "Super Fantastic iHalibut with Eye CocoPopping rice" ...so stupid

In a world of commoditised IT, names, and other brand perceptions, are pretty important. There are many MP3 players that do more, and cost less, than the iPod, to take one example, and many with much more straightforward names -- but none have made the tiniest dent in Apple's marketshare.

That halibut sounds good, by the way. Where can I get some?

Tentative names included Windows Blackcomb, Windows Vienna, WindOS X, Windex, Windows Steak and Bl*wj*bs Edition!!! (which proved in beta testing to be Tofu and Long Querulous Discussion About Where Our Relationship Is Going Edition) and Windows 2007^W2008^W2009^W2010.

Blog rant: http://tinyurl.com/3l8pws

Whatever happened to the MP1 and MP2 players? And what does the MP stand for in MP3 anyway? Military Police? Member of Parliament?

Post new comment or question

Login to use your NBR member name
Full HTML is not supported but you can use the following tags in your comments:
Link: <url>link</url>
Quote: <quote>text</quote>