[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Update: Here's Why It's Windows 7 here

[Klingon725]

Strange math, but no matter how you count it, it's still Windows and not Mac!

[PMcc]

Actually this is not quite correct: "MS Windows" a dos based system actually ended with ME ver 4.90.3000 , What we have now is MS NT which is still being called "Windows". NT went from 3.1 to NT 4.0 then Windows 2000 pro. (NT 5.0) then XP (NT 5.1) then Vista (NT 6.0) . Which sounds logical since Windows 7 you would think is going to be (NT ver 7.0) but apparently this is not the case as I have heard Windows 7 will be (NT 6.1????) so where they get Windows 7 is still beyond me.

[Vigilante]

Exactly. Microsoft (thus far) have released versions as major > minor > major > minor.
Windows 2000 > major > version 5.0
Windows XP > minor > version 5.1
Windows Vista > Major > version 6.0
By this logic, windows 7 shouldnt be windows 7 at all, but simply windows 6.1. Microsoft have themselves said this is a minor update, not the [r]evolutionary step that Vista was, at least in terms of its codebase.
They must be doing this to try to put Windows 7 as far away from the bad press of Vista as possible - One of the primary reasons for naming XP was because Windows 2000 had built up a reputation for being very business oriented - which indeed, it was. Naming its successor XP meant, in the eyes of the public at least, that this was completely different. The "teletubbies" default theme enforced that, making it look sufficiently different, despite the fact that it's windows 2000 with added compatibility and home user extras (movie maker anyone?).
What this tells me is that this release will be similar to that of XP - Underlying it will be a tweaked, tuned version of vista. It will likely have a marginally different UI; nothing major, just enough to differentiate it from vista. Here's hoping that with the majority of hardware vendors now developing decent vista drivers, and windows 7's claimed full compatibility with them, that this will be a huge success, considering that Windows Vista's main failure at launch was the lack of hardware support. Hell, for some people, that still is an issue (HP I'm looking at you, and your printers/scanners!).

[sk33t3r]

Shouldn't I get my money back since I "upgraded" from 2000 to XP???

[FrodoKB]

So where does Microsoft Bob fall into this?

[cjhedinger]

:-)

Maybe they are counting Windows Mojave as version 6.1

:-)

[rickdawson]

well windows mobile is currently 6.1

[alexb]

you know, Mojave doesn't technically exist. Microsoft simply renamed vista in an attempt to make vista critics use vista without knowing it.

[cjhedinger]

Yes Alexb - that was an attempt at a joke as indicated by the smiley's. Sorry for the confusion.

[alexb]

no prob dude

[DWilson61]

Thank God it IS Windows and not a Mac because Macs (Apples) are good for one thing ONLY...... Eating!!! :)

[zgreenwell]

It is still just marketing fluff. A rose by any other name wouldn't sell as well.

[usaflorida5000]

wow very interesting

http://www.diarytech...than-vista.html

[number6]

Below is a link to a Wikipedia article that lists almost all of the Windows versions. It makes sense to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mswindows#16-bitoperating_environments

[rkinne01]

Here's the only way I can see how the numbering works:

1. Windows 95

2. Windows 98

3. Windows 98SE

4. Windows ME

5. Windows XP

6. Vista