10.26.09
There is No Windows 7; Vista 7 is Actually Windows 6.1
Summary: A confirmatory check shows that Vista 7 is labeled by Microsoft as “Windows 6.1.7600.16385″
MANY months ago we showed that Vista 7 was in fact Windows 6.1. Vista is Windows 6.0 and Vista 7 is very similar to it, so the numbering makes sense.
Just to be sure, I’ve asked: “Does [Vista 7] RTM still say [Windows] 6.1?”
“Windows 2000 was NT 5.0, XP was 5.1.”
–RyanThe answer was: “I’ve been using the RTM since June 24th, and yes 6.1.7600.” Indeed, this can be confirmed by querying the system.
“Windows 2000 was NT 5.0, XP was 5.1,” adds our reader Ryan, who was once a Microsoft MVP.
6.1 sounds like an appropriate version number for the “Mojave experiment”. Perhaps that was an experiment for Microsoft to learn if it could get away with sort of rebadging Windows Vista SP3 and marketing it very aggressively (using gentle bribes even) as a new and separate operating system, departing completely from the “Vista” brand it had spent so much money building.
What does Vista 7 offer that Vista does not already have? Almost nothing of substance.
One person in OS News asks: “What features?”
The body of the comment goes as follows.
Took away Ultimate Extras, changed the control panel, moved simple stuff like printers around, changed the start menu and forcing the new start menu on people, and all the dumb things like UAC are still dumb.
Its Vista Service Pack 3, with forced changes (no Classic start menu), it will piss of IT organizations again, it really didn’t add anything new, in fact, it took things away.
This is more or less another big disappointment. Its money for an effective service pack. It makes forced changes to appeal to the 10-15% of people who aren’t using windows and gleefully risking pissing everyone else off (the long term Windows users).
Moving things around also makes support harder. And, just to make sure where I am on this, Ribbon stinks, and real applications like Illustrator and Photoshop don’t screw with the interface because what is there works for people who actually DO WORK.
I think the biggest leap in innovation was from 3.1 -> NT 4.0, it was huge. It was cutler bringing NT kernel in and making real changes. Things have been incremental till Windows 2003, which in my mind, is the Windows operating system’s peak.
Now its a sad boring death, and it isn’t even that exciting to watch anymore.
I have administrated highly heterogeneous networks and IT systems, I use Windows every day, I game occasionally, but I also use FreeBSD, Linux and Solaris every day as well.
Windows XP did everything I need Windows Vista and Windows 7 today, save support more modern wireless encryption with ease (and that could be fixed in XP if MSFT wanted to).
Also, with Windows 7 XP mode, IT will really hate it, now they have to buy 2 seats of antivirus and junk like that for every workstation.
Windows 7 should have at least included a real Antivirus, like DOS 6 used to have it (MSAV). But no, in the age of taking stuff away and calling it new, Windows 7 fits right in I guess.
64-bit support still remains “hacky” as well, seems we are stuck with system32, wow64, and (x86) bs in certain directories.
In a word: Fail. Vista SP3. NEXT. Its worth using simply to get bug fixes but offers nothing new and isn’t worth the money.
Here is another post which is titled “Things to Know About Windows 7.”
* Cannot “upgrade” from Windows XP– only from Vista. XP users will have to do a full-package clean install
* To upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 with XP-compatibility will cost users $299
* Significant incompatibility with Windows XP
* Only the pricier versions offer an XP-compatible mode
* Twelve confusing releases to choose from, with hidden “gotchas” in eight of them
* Doesn’t really bring anything new to the table, nor give users a reason for upgrading from Windows XP– especially at a $299 price tag
We’re not quite over with Vista 7, not just yet anyway. The launch was a relative failure and truths are beginning to trickle in. Vista 7 is a wonderful example of how vicious, deceptive, and even criminal Microsoft still is. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
Yuhong Bao said,
October 27, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Yea, I mentioned this before, and you know that the server version is called Windows Server 2008 R2.
uberVU - social comments said,
October 28, 2009 at 1:55 am
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Reddit by Queue29: and what the fuck does this have to do with linux?…
Yuhong Bao said,
November 1, 2009 at 2:03 am
“There is no Windows 7″
There is Windows 7, it is the marketing name. BTW, this is not the only time MS did this, Exchange 2007 was called Exchange 12 during the early betas, but 12 was not the internal version number.