This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Microsoft's product release 'Windows 7' that this Wiki article documents, has version number 6.1.7600 - which is self-evident. Using the name Seven is a pure marketing tactic - and has NOTHING to do with the real Windows product's version number - which is indeed 6.1. And if you're putting forth the argument that 'W7' is versioned 6.1 to 'indicate its similar build to Vista' & 'increase compatibility with apps that check major version #s', then for once, let's reverse our thinking - assume IT IS version 6.1 - AND it has been named W7. For the first point, it's a fact that it's similiar to Vista, since it's the same codebase, secondly - the thing about compatibility is something abstract (or should i say absurd?) that you're talking. Assume this - the apps that check for version # on W7 would get 6.1 - which IS right, since the product that's just got the name 'Windows Seven' IS relly version 6.1 and NOT 7.x by any chance. These propositions would collectively conclude that this Windows release SHOULD not be 'versioned' 7, but of course it can be 'named' 7 - because after all '7' is just a name. After all, the apps aren't gonna read the 'name', they're gonna read the 'version'. It's We that'll read the name 7. So the name relates to us, only we've been wrongly associating it with a very lucky #. And that's what MS wanted - pure marketing, if you can see (but unfortunately few would). ;) If you're still finding it hard to believe my theory, then here's a brainer - read it whole again, but only temporarily forget that the seven in Windows Seven is a number, just think of Seven as a name -- and you will see light! Okay, I'll give you another brainer - let's (assume) time-travel to the near future... to the next release of Windows that'll have 'version' # 7.0. Then is this future product going to be named Windows 7?! I kid you not!! Yes, you're right - we're going to look back to when 'Windows version 6.1' released that was named 'Windows 7'. Or why not think this way - assume 7.0 or 7.1 or 7.x released with the name Windows 8, and the Windows version 8.x family got named Windows 9. Something doesn't sound right, does it? So, prima-facie this naming phenomenon by Microsoft is a one-time thing. And of course I'm not talking about the multi-digit names such as 95, 98 & 2000. And from what the contributor below has written, I infer he's talking about 'Windows NT version 7'. Tell me if I'm wrong. ~
If you add this to the article: It is the seventh version. "Windows 7 gets its name by reference to the NT line of development and its major versions, which not includes the belonging derivatives (explicit server versions and editions to be considered)."
I'm not exactly sure where people are getting the idea that the version number is 7. Just because its called Win7 doesn't mean anything. Vista means to see, you only really see bluescreens (lol) Its not the 7th release, and the its not even the 7th release of NT (3.11 isn't listed above) Its just a name, the version number is 6.1 and its a 'major upgrade' to vista but only kept the 6.x for compatibility. This has been explained in the WTB article. Whats in a name? chocobogamer mine 12:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Unionhawk is 100% right. As I said, whats in a name? FF11 is an online-only game without random battles and no real ending but its still called FF11 (and its not even the 11th FF release) It should probably not be called FF11, but it is. Again, the official reason has been given to it being 6.1 (hardware/software compatibility) no arguements. jeez all this above is OR. like other people who have said that its because its the 7th generally available version - 95, 98, 98SE, Me, xp, Vista, 7 (2000 not 98SE depending on where you look). But nope, its called 7 just because. The WTB explaination is: W1, W2, W3, W4:9x/Me, W5:2K/XP, W6:Vista then W7, but internally titled 6.1 'purely' for compatibility reasons. Yes that is confusing as it should by the in-depth explaination (over xp) be Windows8 chocobogamer mine 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"whats in a name?" sure that's a philosophic question, but wikipedia is for information, and if there was a reasoning for calling it "7", even if it is untrue or flawed, we deserve to know if it can be sourced who named it 7 and why it is reasoned as being the 7th windows. If the information exists, it can likely find its way to be attested here on Wikipedia. 65.102.40.8 ( talk) 07:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This "Why is it 7-question" is just a marketing-issue. There is no other really logical explanation, why this one should be named "7". Also this short name somehow might symbolize a cleaned-up version after Vista was somewhat heavy and slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.89.70 ( talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to tell you guys that Microsoft released their view on a video in a net why Windows Seven is the 7th "consumer line" release of Windows family of operating _environments_. They dropped ME out of the line and counted only major versions. So reason why Microsoft calls Windows 7 seventh home consumer release is that they only counted 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista which leads us to Seven. But as we all know. Truth is that Windows NT 6.1 is 12th or 14th release of Windows for home consumers. There's before Seven at least Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, 95OSR, 98, 98SE, ME, NT3.51, NT4.0, Win2000, XP, Vista and then Seven. It all depends on perspective but I'd say that wikipedia should clarify that Windows Seven _is not_ 7th Windows to existence. Not even the 7th version or 7th distribution for whatever means. Calling Windows Seven 7th is just PR. --
Dekonega (
talk) 10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
first things first. most of you wont realise that this argument is stemmed off of a previous one that its 6.1. the argument surrounds its build number being 6.1 not 7.0 and people were changing the build number on article to 7.0. then asking why if its build 6.1 why is it called 7. the simple answer is it just is. it seems even MS have different theories on it so my little 'whats in a name' seems to be the answer. its just a name. microsoft 'skipping' 98/se and me is comical. 98 was certainly in the day and maybe even up to vista considered a major release. all theories dont stand up to scrutineering. the closest is the major consumer versions, but as i said. 98, but if they exclude that then in 10 years time we must assume 7 will be considered a minor version as its 6.1. the truth makes no sense. compatibility is the reason its 6.1 but called 7. i prefer the idea that it comes from the start of the cleaner more coloured (home user) frontends (3, 95 98 me xp vista 7) (which of course coincide with the more familiar windows wavy flag like logo) but its only another theory. microsoft are explaining their own unmatched ideas chocobogamer mine 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So we can safely forget that why Seven is Seven as long as we write into wikipedia that Windows Seven is at least 14th Windows release and is NT6.1 and Microsoft claims it to be 7th consumer line Windows release ment for home users and alike. But this is like throwing dices. There are few hundred combinations of different ways to get end result 7. -- Dekonega ( talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
how this discussion is still going on i do not know. however the one thats described as most believable (Counting largely known home releases):
1. Windows 3.0 2. Windows 95 3. Windows 98 4. Windows ME 5. Windows XP 6. Windows Vista 7. Windows Seven
The bit about forgetting 1.x and 2.x is not necessarily true. My theories: 1. Windows 3.x is the earliest recognisable version to any end user. The earlier ones are blocky and more DOS-like. 2. Win3.x had a level of kernel compatibility right the way through to XP (which itself is available in 7 pro and ultimate). 3. Win 3 was the first to use the more familiar framed windows logo chocobogamer mine 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, at this point, we're getting into OR territory. Let's just use what the source says:
“ | The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.
Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense. |
” |
— Mike Nash, Windows Team Blog |
(emphasis not in original) The source says that they called it Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows, so that's what we say. Truth ≠ verifiability.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow this thread's long. Look: we have a source. It backs up a claim. It's "Windows 7" because it's the seventh release, plain and simple. Airplaneman talk 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why everyone is trying to justify the 7 in the name by picking (random) released versions of Windows so that Win 7 is the 7th release. It is NOT the 7th release by any stretch of the imagination. The only justification is that the version number of WinXP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0, and Win7 would have been 7.0 but they decided to use 6.1 for compatibility. Technically, WinXP could have been 6.0 since Win2000 was 5.0 but Microsoft didn't make it that way. There are far more than simply seven versions of Windows. Nyr56 ( talk) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. 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. |
” |
— Mike Nash, Windows Team Blog |
Here endith the lesson. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. 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.
This is like the ultimate in double dutch and comical words "quite simple numbering" pah. OK lets look at what he said exactly: W1.0 (1) W2.0 (2) W3.0 (3) W9x/4.x (4) W2k/WXP (5.x) WV (6) W7 (7) He is not explaining how 7 is 7, he's explaining how 7 is 8 because you can't say XP is as major a release as 7 and then exclude it from a list that 7 is on, thats just nonsense.
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 [...] So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases This is the double dutch comment, He is explaining that XP should in reality be 6, so how can 7 be the 7th release? Per his 'reasoning' that 7 should have a major version in reality, as XP supposedly should too, it should therefore be v8: W2k (5) WXP (6) WV (7) W7 (8)
It is not worth including a rationale for it being called 7 as the reasons are illogical. Again, this conversation came because someone changed the version number from 6.1 to 7 and said blahblah cant say 6.1. At the end of the day, Microsoft have a habit of nonsensical version numbers, they skipped 4 versions of Office Word so that its version number matched its Mac version (although it supposedly was really to match the competition), they skipped 6(??) versions of Windows Live Messenger. Their numbering makes no sense and I think in all honesty it was just 7 for the sake of it and theyre trying to explain something unexplainable chocobogamer mine 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so it's not really version 7. They aren't going to change it now, certainly not based on what's written here. It's just a name. Who cares?
Andy Johnston (
talk) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I offer an opinion? Well actually, probably fact. Firstly, Windows 7 is not the 7th release of Windows. Secondly, Windows 7 is an incremental upgrade from Vista, that's what gives with the slight version number increase. Why they didn't call it 6.1 is because it's not good for marketing. Just like in the old days when they had names like "General Industries". Thirdly, 7 is a lucky number. Compared, of course, to 13 which is an unlucky number, which Microsoft decided to skip with Microsoft Office. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is just like how Windows 98 is not 14 times better than Windows 7. :) No News ! 04:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It IS called Windows 7 - there can be no doubt about that. Whether you find it interesting to know or work out why it's called that, or even to argue that it shouldn't be is irrelevant to an article about Windows 7. It's a name. Microsoft could have called it Windows 2009, or Windows 14, or Windows NT 6.1, or Windows Fluffybunnykins - it really doesn't matter.
Similarly irrelevant is what anyone thinks of the Version number. It is what it is whether you do or do not understand why, whether you do or do not agree with the number or even whether there is a consistent and universal agreement within Microsoft about what the version should have been. If a program makes a system call to find out the OS version, and the answer 6.1 comes back then it IS 6.1.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.126.212 ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, look.
Windows 1 is 1
Windows 2 is 2
Windows 3 is 3
Windows NT 3.x family IS 3.
Windows NT 4 is 4
Also, Windows 9x and ME is 4.
Windows 2000 is 5
Windows XP is 5.1
Windows Vista is 6.
Windows 7 is 7 but 6.1 is for compatibly reasons.
95.145.96.7 (
talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just to conclude, really, it's called Windows 7, not Windows OS 7, or Windows v. 7.0 or Windows 7.0. Just simply Windows 7. That proves that it's a marketing ploy. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I just moved this here from the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article, because it belongs here... If it was properly sourced, I'd drop it in the main article, but it's not, so here goes:
Original research|date=November 2009
Notability|section|date=November 2009
Windows 7 doesn't include two existing
time zones
UTC+12:45 (
Chatham Islands) and
UTC+14 (
Line Islands).
-- DanielPharos ( talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please insert the following template into the Marketing section:
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (November 2009) |
PerthMod ( talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've used empty-section instead of expand-section -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone update reference 17 to include the following filled out cite template?
<ref name="msJustifiesWin7NamingDecision">{{cite web | url = http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_justifies_its_windows_7_naming_decision | title = Microsoft Justifies Its Windows 7 Naming Decision | author = Alex Castle | date = 2008-10-15 | publisher = [[Maximum PC]] | accessdate = 2009-11-18 }}</ref>
I'd do it myself but the page is currently locked. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done PerthMod ( talk) 09:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Cite 18 is broken [5]. It gives a 404 error. I checked archive.org [6], but it is not archived. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Even no word about criticism? it may be cause POV template :). No word about its EULA limitations, what about the FSF campaign? Netanel h ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
God this is my second post today! I am going to get rid of the bare URL's tag at the top of the page as I have corrected the dead link(18) and have got rid of the bare URL cite (19) if anyone thinks they have found better cites then feel free to replace them. But, as I have already said it is going it means nothing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlike Vista users, you can't do a straight upgrade from XP to 7. Instead, you must do a complete install which means backing up all your data and reinstalling all your programs. Here are a few sources we can use for the article: Houston Chronicle, Computer World, PC World. I'd do it myself but the article is currently locked. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The one currently being used has a date before the RTM. That could confuse many people and make them think that the section has conflicting information. I have provided a picture myself that will hopefully provide a much better view. Here are a few reasons as to why it needs to be replaced:
-Even though it shows the start menu, it should just provide a screenshot of the first thing you see when you get to the desktop, not the start menu (That can be pictured somewhere else) -Cursor is fully shown compared to the current one -Unconfusing date compared to the current one -Other minor and aesthetic changes such as the time
Unfortunately, I am a beginner user and have not yet familiarized myself with this kind of stuff.
Here is the (hopefully able to be) replacement picture: PNG: [7] JPEG: [8] BMP: [9] GIF: [10]
KryticalEffect ( talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a npov article. Look at the reception section. There is no mention of the extensive hardware compatibility and performance issues. I'm not a Linux/Mac fanboi, I'm an unhappy Windows 7 user. I'd take an hour and create an honest and accurate criticism section, but it would be reverted within an hour.
After articles like this, I really question how Wikipedia is more accurate than my grandma's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.15.170 ( talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I urge all wikipedians reviewing sources for this software to be aware of the following facts: (mainly related to teenagers having no idea of recent software history)
- Windows XP was NOT a 'totally unique/major release', it was based on 2000. However, I've read several sites saying 'win7 is amazing, it's a major release like windows xp'.
- Windows XP was cursed and hated for at least 1 year of its release, this is forgotten by the kids.
- This is obviously a Vista "RC2" or something like that; they could as well release it as service pack (but of course it wouldn't be a cash cow/vista brandname was tarnished) - it would be easily possible obviously, they've done way bigger changes, anyone remembers that hideous and huge service pack on windows 95 to apply integrated iexplorer?.
So stop licking microsoft ass - pardon the french but I heard wikipedia is uncensored - and realize 7 is a polished vista, just as XP was a 'pop 2000', just as 98 was a refined 95, just as Vista was an unfinished product just as ME was a bloated and buggy 98, etc. Check your sources before believing 17 year old fanboys. ok tx bye.-- 94.70.114.236 ( talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. There is a difference between new version, and repackaged update. I got a trial version of XP after using 98/2000 for awhile, and while I hated it until I found that XP could run videos better (98 had some lag for all videos with DivX), but yes it was definitely a new version. Windows 7 is a hyped repackage of Vista. I notice the same weird functionality, the same user-unfriendliness and lack of backwards-compatibility (Windows 7 is a bit updated, but alot of programs simply wouldn't work on Vista), and the same licensing scamming from Vista. And I don't even wanna think about whether everything from Vista onward might have spyware that reports all you do to potential employers. Isn't it time private citizens had the right to look at or do whatever they wanted in their own free time, provided it doesn't actually hurt someone? What a concept. Bulmabriefs144 ( talk) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Windows 7, if at all mimicking anything, is more to Mac OS X Snow Leopard than it is to Windows Vista. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Check this out. Perhaps someone can edit this in somewhere if appropriate.
As part of that announcement, Microsoft reported that it has sold more than 60 million Windows 7 licenses to date. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=5079&tag=nl.e539 Rasmasyean ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) hi i am amit chaudhary it is very efective windows. my email id - chaudhary1308@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.220.36 ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
technologiser should be technologizer
so
18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.". technologiser.com. http://technologiser.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/2/.
should be
18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.". technologizer.com. http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/2/.
hope this helps
changed Thanks. PerthMod ( talk) 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This section needs some serious cleanup. What does the marketing have to do with what version what users should run? Why is there a "However" in the section, which serves to echo one of the pointless complaints by people who like to spell Microsoft with a $? 72.43.206.210 ( talk) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My main goal in reading the article was to find constructive and solid reasons to upgrade to Windows 7, but this not-very-relevant section was about as close as it came... I don't know if I'd say the section needs cleanup as much as a more neutral point of view, but overall the article was a disappointment. (That also includes two related articles linked to this one. I still don't have a good reason to buy from Microsoft--but that's never stopped them from forcing me to use their software anyway.) Shanen ( talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox, why does it say "October 22, 2009; 4 month(s) ago"? Why not just "October 22, 2009", we don't need the "4 month(s) ago" part. That just looks weird. 76.67.211.253 ( talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Repositing Gartenberg's quote as a question at the bottom of the Antitrust section is an editorial comment and should be removed in the interest of neutrality. Kuritsubaji 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuritsubaji ( talk • contribs)
IMHO, the fact that Windows 7 is the current version of Windows being sold by Microsoft is relevant to this article. However, when I have inserted that information, it has twice been reverted. I still believe that it is relevant to include, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. So I'd like to know what other people think. Ithizar ( talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Whats in a Name! It works much better than Vista and thats more important!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.87.36 ( talk) 11:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
We need to add information on the new SSD support features. There are a number of articles covering this in pretty good detail.
I see there is a separate article on Features new to Windows 7 # Solid state drives that may be a better place for the details. In that case we just need to put something on this page about SSDs and link to that article. If I get a chance I will come back to do this myself after I complete other updates I have in process on the Storage articles. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
come on people windows 7 sp1 is available on microsoft no more leaked things please update the article thanks plaease do it i always come here to read the latest things about this
I propose an easier to read article layout as follows:
I think it may also make sense to just make a separate article for History of Windows 7 because it's getting rather lengthy. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the maintenance tags I put in this section were removed as excessive tagging and other comments I thought I would raise the issue here rather than readding them again.
Maintenance tags I added and why:
Of these only one has been fixed as of the time I am writing this but all these tags were removed because the were Excessive.
There are other entries that need additional citations also.
I can continue but most of the information is still not adequately sourced as a criticism. It is almost all just what some users feel are problems not what reliable sources see as problems. This section needs major work. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I went through the criticism section and made the following changes:
Since after going through the criticism section I could only find one statement that had a reliable source and because no consensus had been reached on adding a criticism section I moved the reliably sourced statement to the reception section. -- GrandDrake ( talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This section has been added to consolidate the multiple NPOV discussions, the multiple "No Criticism of Windows 7 Sections", Article layout issues, and other disinformation and/or misleading information in the article. It has been added to the top because it is a central issue in this article. Please don't move it to the bottom. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Several wikipedians have complained about the neutrality of this article. They specifically cite that there is no Criticism section. I have added one with dozens of references but these changes keep being undone by GB fan and GrandDrake. I have flagged the article as NPOV and NPOV-Check which have been undone by these authors as well. In an attempt to mislead readers, these two have buried any criticisms deep within a "Reception" section, a place most people are not likely to look and would require them to read 90% of the article which contains nothing but praise before they get to the bottom and read the criticism which has been trivialized and the majority of it suppressed. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a section on Windows features new in Windows 7, like Bitlocker? Willbennett2007 ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"Windows 7 will be succeeded by Windows 8, which has no release date as of yet."
That looks to me like a clear violation of the Wikipedia rule about not predicting the future. 69.37.3.221 ( talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Do not add this-it's speculative if you're talking about Windows 7-this belongs in the section on Windows 8 in History of Microsoft Windows. Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't speculative. Later, we had a conference on microsoft, to show the Windows 7 for ARM processors (it's a prototype, but, functional). They announed that the ARM support is done in Windows 8. 187.20.112.206 ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no source for any evidence of windows 7 running on arm systems, here's the video of the original press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKc_XGuvNIk it's been specified that they are demonstrating a future version of windows running arm platform, and had never said it's windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.83.218 ( talk) 09:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, the maximum number of logical processors is NOT per physical CPU, nor is it based on the actual core count. 256 hyper-threaded cores are not supported. In theory too, 2 processors of 256 threads each is also not supported. Do not add this again. Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The current stable build is now 7601 (Service Pack 1) which was built on Friday 13th Janurary 2011 and was released to OEMS last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.201 ( talk) 08:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
The stable release of Windows 7 SP1 is available through Microsoft's website to download and install.
Pologoalie8908 ( talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that many editors have entered grammatically incorrect info to this article. Just a reminder that grammar rules apply here. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The "P" in "Service packs" needs to be capitalized. Under "Service packs" a subtitle that should be named "Service Pack 1" (for identifying Windows 7 Service Pack 1) is missing from the section. There also shouldn't be unnecessary information about Service Pack 1 due to the fact the section looks like a timeline instead of what the Service Pack brings to Windows 7. Also in the last three sentences of "Service packs" are almost duplicate information. Wangowiki ( talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Partly done: done for the second request, but Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. for the second.-- Breawycker ( talk to me!) Review Me! 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the "Europe" section, there is an E randomly placed near where it says "Windows 7". Please remove it. Mrs. Betty ( talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Within Hardware Requirements under MultiCore Processors, it states that 32 bit systems can handle upto 2 cores. However when checking the source it states that its 32 cores. Must have just been a typo but quite a major one. Bushell89 ( talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I am surprised that so many people still do not know about the five pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's mission. I have recently deleted a paragraph about an error in Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 because it looked like another instance practicing the favorite sport of criticize-the-hell-out-of-Microsoft! A bunch of guys had encountered problems installing Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and a journalist exaggerating it into a world-wide crisis.
Computer errors happen everyday, people. Please don't make such a big deal out of them, unless there are strong evidences. Fleet Command ( talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the reception section license sales are listed. The over 300 million licenses sold reported on jan 27 should be specified better on the timeframe as it about sales up to dec 31st 2010 as listen in the Earnings Release FY11 Q2. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q2/default.aspx.
Also a new sales figure has been posted on the windows team blog as of april 22nd of over 350 million licenses solds in the 18 month since the release. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2011/04/22/windows-7-at-18-months.aspx 86.83.239.142 ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
When reading about Windows 7 only supporting 2 physical CPUs I was surprised. Until I realized it was NOT talking about cores, but about CPUs. It would be good to remove discussion about the processors supported from the article, since no one has more than 1 physical CPU. It is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.5.139 ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| succeeded by windows 8 Andres3510 ( talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotification ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
Please do not fill this field in with Windows 8 until it has been released. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The only change I would make to that is instead of using small text, use italic text. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources to confirm the date of release in the brackets? -- JetBlast ( talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I decided to be bold even though I haven't contributed to the article before and swap the Features with the Development section. The previous article layout was set up before Windows 7 was released (see edits into 2009) when the development (including which versions of which beta had trojans) would have been of interest to most readers. Today, two years after the release, the main items of interest for most readers will be differences with previous versions (or with other OSes). This redesign was proposed earlier in the Talk page but the discussion got focused on a proposed reorganization of the Criticism section -- moving up features and down development was (in my quick read) only mentioned twice and both times positively. I think that the Development section can be trimmed (including things like the presence of trojans or not) since there is a separate subpage for that. But I only wanted to do one bold change at a time, since it's not an area I tend to edit in. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Today I noticed that Service Pack 1 is now listed under mandatory updates, while it previously was optional. I'm using Windows 7 Professional x86 (NL version). Can someone confirm this? If so, it would seem usefull to include this in the article for reasons of completeness.-- Blecchi ( talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Saraiki language must be added in windows.
Hiii
I am Using Window 7 Professional from one year. In my window I am not having the Bitlocker option. Please anyone can suggest why it so??
Further, Speed of my PC to slow, i work out at different areas to improve it but still it is same. Please suggest for any option which helps me to boost up my PCs speed.
regards, Sanddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.183.76 ( talk) 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I was skimming around and found out in the Development of Windows 7 that it is the 7th version of windows. Gregory Heffley ( talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
High sales numbers does not necessarily indicate that windows 7 is good. It could indicate that there are no viable alternatives in many countries like e.g. India and Microsoft Vista was so bad that people were waiting to upgrade from Windows XP This fact should be presented in right context The section seemed to be biased towards Windows 7 and Microsoft. How can you compare Harry Potter sales to Windows 7 My mother is in India does not read / cannot understand Harry Potter but she still needs to use Windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichinoy ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
An article dedicated to the criticism of Windows 7 needs to be written. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 189.121.194.187 ( talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is about another article, not a section in this article. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to change all references in this article to IA-32 to x86, as this is the terminology used by, well, everyone - including Microsoft themselves. I could go with x86-32 as well. What do you think?
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements
LarsHolmberg ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What is name of boot loader used by Windows 7 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaseemjaved ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In the reception paragraugh, it says this - 'As of Januari 19, 2012, over 525 million copies have been sold.'
As you can see, January has been spelled wrong. Can some one please edit it as it isn't letting me edit the page. Thank you very much.
LGMarshall ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
According to Microsoft the general availability date of Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 was 2/22/2011. The reference currently given for the final release date of February 9, 2011 also appears to confirm a February 22nd release date. -- 75.186.114.141 ( talk) 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that Windows Vista included several handwriting improvements as well. [1] ( I love entei ( talk) 06:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC))
It really should be mentioned that the overall "sales" of Windows 7 licenses are not just sales of the operating system. New PCs count towards this number (they're currently bundled with Windows 7), as do replacement licenses. This...misconception of sales figures should not continue to be perpetuated. It is misleading to consumers and the like who will construe it as overall sales of the operating system. ( MazaG20 ( talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the current release of Windows anymore since Windows 8 is now rolling out.
Can we get this updated?
Blimey I thought this would take longer to process. I am on the full version of Windows 8 hence the comment, still is there any need to demarcate, a particular version of Windows, as current? Then it would never need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.212.172 ( talk) 08:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Semi protection was set to expire Nov 5. It's now Nov 7 and it's still in effect and wasn't extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.120.250 ( talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I got here on a redirect from "Microsoft Image Backup" but the topic of the redirect isn't mentioned in the article. Is that an improvement from something? I'll go look at the history of the redirect maybe... Economy1 ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
What about some information about this campaign? Galzigler ( talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Today I reverted no less than 20 edits by User:LittleBenW. I inspected every single one of them and unfortunately all were problematic. To summarize, problems include:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
How are previous versions created?
Previous versions are automatically saved as part of a restore point. If system protection is turned on, Windows automatically creates previous versions of files and folders that have been modified since the last restore point was made. Typically, restore points are made once a day. If your disk is partitioned or if you have more than one hard disk on your computer, you need to turn on system protection for the other partitions or disks. Previous versions are also created by Windows Backup when you back up your files.
— "Previous versions of files: frequently asked questions". Windows Help. Microsoft. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
Microsoft's product release 'Windows 7' that this Wiki article documents, has version number 6.1.7600 - which is self-evident. Using the name Seven is a pure marketing tactic - and has NOTHING to do with the real Windows product's version number - which is indeed 6.1. And if you're putting forth the argument that 'W7' is versioned 6.1 to 'indicate its similar build to Vista' & 'increase compatibility with apps that check major version #s', then for once, let's reverse our thinking - assume IT IS version 6.1 - AND it has been named W7. For the first point, it's a fact that it's similiar to Vista, since it's the same codebase, secondly - the thing about compatibility is something abstract (or should i say absurd?) that you're talking. Assume this - the apps that check for version # on W7 would get 6.1 - which IS right, since the product that's just got the name 'Windows Seven' IS relly version 6.1 and NOT 7.x by any chance. These propositions would collectively conclude that this Windows release SHOULD not be 'versioned' 7, but of course it can be 'named' 7 - because after all '7' is just a name. After all, the apps aren't gonna read the 'name', they're gonna read the 'version'. It's We that'll read the name 7. So the name relates to us, only we've been wrongly associating it with a very lucky #. And that's what MS wanted - pure marketing, if you can see (but unfortunately few would). ;) If you're still finding it hard to believe my theory, then here's a brainer - read it whole again, but only temporarily forget that the seven in Windows Seven is a number, just think of Seven as a name -- and you will see light! Okay, I'll give you another brainer - let's (assume) time-travel to the near future... to the next release of Windows that'll have 'version' # 7.0. Then is this future product going to be named Windows 7?! I kid you not!! Yes, you're right - we're going to look back to when 'Windows version 6.1' released that was named 'Windows 7'. Or why not think this way - assume 7.0 or 7.1 or 7.x released with the name Windows 8, and the Windows version 8.x family got named Windows 9. Something doesn't sound right, does it? So, prima-facie this naming phenomenon by Microsoft is a one-time thing. And of course I'm not talking about the multi-digit names such as 95, 98 & 2000. And from what the contributor below has written, I infer he's talking about 'Windows NT version 7'. Tell me if I'm wrong. ~
If you add this to the article: It is the seventh version. "Windows 7 gets its name by reference to the NT line of development and its major versions, which not includes the belonging derivatives (explicit server versions and editions to be considered)."
I'm not exactly sure where people are getting the idea that the version number is 7. Just because its called Win7 doesn't mean anything. Vista means to see, you only really see bluescreens (lol) Its not the 7th release, and the its not even the 7th release of NT (3.11 isn't listed above) Its just a name, the version number is 6.1 and its a 'major upgrade' to vista but only kept the 6.x for compatibility. This has been explained in the WTB article. Whats in a name? chocobogamer mine 12:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Unionhawk is 100% right. As I said, whats in a name? FF11 is an online-only game without random battles and no real ending but its still called FF11 (and its not even the 11th FF release) It should probably not be called FF11, but it is. Again, the official reason has been given to it being 6.1 (hardware/software compatibility) no arguements. jeez all this above is OR. like other people who have said that its because its the 7th generally available version - 95, 98, 98SE, Me, xp, Vista, 7 (2000 not 98SE depending on where you look). But nope, its called 7 just because. The WTB explaination is: W1, W2, W3, W4:9x/Me, W5:2K/XP, W6:Vista then W7, but internally titled 6.1 'purely' for compatibility reasons. Yes that is confusing as it should by the in-depth explaination (over xp) be Windows8 chocobogamer mine 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
"whats in a name?" sure that's a philosophic question, but wikipedia is for information, and if there was a reasoning for calling it "7", even if it is untrue or flawed, we deserve to know if it can be sourced who named it 7 and why it is reasoned as being the 7th windows. If the information exists, it can likely find its way to be attested here on Wikipedia. 65.102.40.8 ( talk) 07:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
This "Why is it 7-question" is just a marketing-issue. There is no other really logical explanation, why this one should be named "7". Also this short name somehow might symbolize a cleaned-up version after Vista was somewhat heavy and slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.130.89.70 ( talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to tell you guys that Microsoft released their view on a video in a net why Windows Seven is the 7th "consumer line" release of Windows family of operating _environments_. They dropped ME out of the line and counted only major versions. So reason why Microsoft calls Windows 7 seventh home consumer release is that they only counted 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista which leads us to Seven. But as we all know. Truth is that Windows NT 6.1 is 12th or 14th release of Windows for home consumers. There's before Seven at least Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, 95OSR, 98, 98SE, ME, NT3.51, NT4.0, Win2000, XP, Vista and then Seven. It all depends on perspective but I'd say that wikipedia should clarify that Windows Seven _is not_ 7th Windows to existence. Not even the 7th version or 7th distribution for whatever means. Calling Windows Seven 7th is just PR. --
Dekonega (
talk) 10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
first things first. most of you wont realise that this argument is stemmed off of a previous one that its 6.1. the argument surrounds its build number being 6.1 not 7.0 and people were changing the build number on article to 7.0. then asking why if its build 6.1 why is it called 7. the simple answer is it just is. it seems even MS have different theories on it so my little 'whats in a name' seems to be the answer. its just a name. microsoft 'skipping' 98/se and me is comical. 98 was certainly in the day and maybe even up to vista considered a major release. all theories dont stand up to scrutineering. the closest is the major consumer versions, but as i said. 98, but if they exclude that then in 10 years time we must assume 7 will be considered a minor version as its 6.1. the truth makes no sense. compatibility is the reason its 6.1 but called 7. i prefer the idea that it comes from the start of the cleaner more coloured (home user) frontends (3, 95 98 me xp vista 7) (which of course coincide with the more familiar windows wavy flag like logo) but its only another theory. microsoft are explaining their own unmatched ideas chocobogamer mine 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
So we can safely forget that why Seven is Seven as long as we write into wikipedia that Windows Seven is at least 14th Windows release and is NT6.1 and Microsoft claims it to be 7th consumer line Windows release ment for home users and alike. But this is like throwing dices. There are few hundred combinations of different ways to get end result 7. -- Dekonega ( talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
how this discussion is still going on i do not know. however the one thats described as most believable (Counting largely known home releases):
1. Windows 3.0 2. Windows 95 3. Windows 98 4. Windows ME 5. Windows XP 6. Windows Vista 7. Windows Seven
The bit about forgetting 1.x and 2.x is not necessarily true. My theories: 1. Windows 3.x is the earliest recognisable version to any end user. The earlier ones are blocky and more DOS-like. 2. Win3.x had a level of kernel compatibility right the way through to XP (which itself is available in 7 pro and ultimate). 3. Win 3 was the first to use the more familiar framed windows logo chocobogamer mine 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Look, at this point, we're getting into OR territory. Let's just use what the source says:
“ | The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.
Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense. |
” |
— Mike Nash, Windows Team Blog |
(emphasis not in original) The source says that they called it Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows, so that's what we say. Truth ≠ verifiability.-- Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Wow this thread's long. Look: we have a source. It backs up a claim. It's "Windows 7" because it's the seventh release, plain and simple. Airplaneman talk 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure why everyone is trying to justify the 7 in the name by picking (random) released versions of Windows so that Win 7 is the 7th release. It is NOT the 7th release by any stretch of the imagination. The only justification is that the version number of WinXP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0, and Win7 would have been 7.0 but they decided to use 6.1 for compatibility. Technically, WinXP could have been 6.0 since Win2000 was 5.0 but Microsoft didn't make it that way. There are far more than simply seven versions of Windows. Nyr56 ( talk) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
“ | Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. 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. |
” |
— Mike Nash, Windows Team Blog |
Here endith the lesson. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. 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.
This is like the ultimate in double dutch and comical words "quite simple numbering" pah. OK lets look at what he said exactly: W1.0 (1) W2.0 (2) W3.0 (3) W9x/4.x (4) W2k/WXP (5.x) WV (6) W7 (7) He is not explaining how 7 is 7, he's explaining how 7 is 8 because you can't say XP is as major a release as 7 and then exclude it from a list that 7 is on, thats just nonsense.
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 [...] So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases This is the double dutch comment, He is explaining that XP should in reality be 6, so how can 7 be the 7th release? Per his 'reasoning' that 7 should have a major version in reality, as XP supposedly should too, it should therefore be v8: W2k (5) WXP (6) WV (7) W7 (8)
It is not worth including a rationale for it being called 7 as the reasons are illogical. Again, this conversation came because someone changed the version number from 6.1 to 7 and said blahblah cant say 6.1. At the end of the day, Microsoft have a habit of nonsensical version numbers, they skipped 4 versions of Office Word so that its version number matched its Mac version (although it supposedly was really to match the competition), they skipped 6(??) versions of Windows Live Messenger. Their numbering makes no sense and I think in all honesty it was just 7 for the sake of it and theyre trying to explain something unexplainable chocobogamer mine 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so it's not really version 7. They aren't going to change it now, certainly not based on what's written here. It's just a name. Who cares?
Andy Johnston (
talk) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Can I offer an opinion? Well actually, probably fact. Firstly, Windows 7 is not the 7th release of Windows. Secondly, Windows 7 is an incremental upgrade from Vista, that's what gives with the slight version number increase. Why they didn't call it 6.1 is because it's not good for marketing. Just like in the old days when they had names like "General Industries". Thirdly, 7 is a lucky number. Compared, of course, to 13 which is an unlucky number, which Microsoft decided to skip with Microsoft Office. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This is just like how Windows 98 is not 14 times better than Windows 7. :) No News ! 04:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
It IS called Windows 7 - there can be no doubt about that. Whether you find it interesting to know or work out why it's called that, or even to argue that it shouldn't be is irrelevant to an article about Windows 7. It's a name. Microsoft could have called it Windows 2009, or Windows 14, or Windows NT 6.1, or Windows Fluffybunnykins - it really doesn't matter.
Similarly irrelevant is what anyone thinks of the Version number. It is what it is whether you do or do not understand why, whether you do or do not agree with the number or even whether there is a consistent and universal agreement within Microsoft about what the version should have been. If a program makes a system call to find out the OS version, and the answer 6.1 comes back then it IS 6.1.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.126.212 ( talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, look.
Windows 1 is 1
Windows 2 is 2
Windows 3 is 3
Windows NT 3.x family IS 3.
Windows NT 4 is 4
Also, Windows 9x and ME is 4.
Windows 2000 is 5
Windows XP is 5.1
Windows Vista is 6.
Windows 7 is 7 but 6.1 is for compatibly reasons.
95.145.96.7 (
talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, just to conclude, really, it's called Windows 7, not Windows OS 7, or Windows v. 7.0 or Windows 7.0. Just simply Windows 7. That proves that it's a marketing ploy. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I just moved this here from the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article, because it belongs here... If it was properly sourced, I'd drop it in the main article, but it's not, so here goes:
Original research|date=November 2009
Notability|section|date=November 2009
Windows 7 doesn't include two existing
time zones
UTC+12:45 (
Chatham Islands) and
UTC+14 (
Line Islands).
-- DanielPharos ( talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Please insert the following template into the Marketing section:
This section needs expansion. You can help by
adding to it. (November 2009) |
PerthMod ( talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've used empty-section instead of expand-section -- PhantomSteve ( Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Can someone update reference 17 to include the following filled out cite template?
<ref name="msJustifiesWin7NamingDecision">{{cite web | url = http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_justifies_its_windows_7_naming_decision | title = Microsoft Justifies Its Windows 7 Naming Decision | author = Alex Castle | date = 2008-10-15 | publisher = [[Maximum PC]] | accessdate = 2009-11-18 }}</ref>
I'd do it myself but the page is currently locked. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Done PerthMod ( talk) 09:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Cite 18 is broken [5]. It gives a 404 error. I checked archive.org [6], but it is not archived. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Even no word about criticism? it may be cause POV template :). No word about its EULA limitations, what about the FSF campaign? Netanel h ( talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
God this is my second post today! I am going to get rid of the bare URL's tag at the top of the page as I have corrected the dead link(18) and have got rid of the bare URL cite (19) if anyone thinks they have found better cites then feel free to replace them. But, as I have already said it is going it means nothing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor ( talk • contribs) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Unlike Vista users, you can't do a straight upgrade from XP to 7. Instead, you must do a complete install which means backing up all your data and reinstalling all your programs. Here are a few sources we can use for the article: Houston Chronicle, Computer World, PC World. I'd do it myself but the article is currently locked. 12.165.250.13 ( talk) 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
{{ editsemiprotected}}
The one currently being used has a date before the RTM. That could confuse many people and make them think that the section has conflicting information. I have provided a picture myself that will hopefully provide a much better view. Here are a few reasons as to why it needs to be replaced:
-Even though it shows the start menu, it should just provide a screenshot of the first thing you see when you get to the desktop, not the start menu (That can be pictured somewhere else) -Cursor is fully shown compared to the current one -Unconfusing date compared to the current one -Other minor and aesthetic changes such as the time
Unfortunately, I am a beginner user and have not yet familiarized myself with this kind of stuff.
Here is the (hopefully able to be) replacement picture: PNG: [7] JPEG: [8] BMP: [9] GIF: [10]
KryticalEffect ( talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not a npov article. Look at the reception section. There is no mention of the extensive hardware compatibility and performance issues. I'm not a Linux/Mac fanboi, I'm an unhappy Windows 7 user. I'd take an hour and create an honest and accurate criticism section, but it would be reverted within an hour.
After articles like this, I really question how Wikipedia is more accurate than my grandma's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.15.170 ( talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I urge all wikipedians reviewing sources for this software to be aware of the following facts: (mainly related to teenagers having no idea of recent software history)
- Windows XP was NOT a 'totally unique/major release', it was based on 2000. However, I've read several sites saying 'win7 is amazing, it's a major release like windows xp'.
- Windows XP was cursed and hated for at least 1 year of its release, this is forgotten by the kids.
- This is obviously a Vista "RC2" or something like that; they could as well release it as service pack (but of course it wouldn't be a cash cow/vista brandname was tarnished) - it would be easily possible obviously, they've done way bigger changes, anyone remembers that hideous and huge service pack on windows 95 to apply integrated iexplorer?.
So stop licking microsoft ass - pardon the french but I heard wikipedia is uncensored - and realize 7 is a polished vista, just as XP was a 'pop 2000', just as 98 was a refined 95, just as Vista was an unfinished product just as ME was a bloated and buggy 98, etc. Check your sources before believing 17 year old fanboys. ok tx bye.-- 94.70.114.236 ( talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really. There is a difference between new version, and repackaged update. I got a trial version of XP after using 98/2000 for awhile, and while I hated it until I found that XP could run videos better (98 had some lag for all videos with DivX), but yes it was definitely a new version. Windows 7 is a hyped repackage of Vista. I notice the same weird functionality, the same user-unfriendliness and lack of backwards-compatibility (Windows 7 is a bit updated, but alot of programs simply wouldn't work on Vista), and the same licensing scamming from Vista. And I don't even wanna think about whether everything from Vista onward might have spyware that reports all you do to potential employers. Isn't it time private citizens had the right to look at or do whatever they wanted in their own free time, provided it doesn't actually hurt someone? What a concept. Bulmabriefs144 ( talk) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Windows 7, if at all mimicking anything, is more to Mac OS X Snow Leopard than it is to Windows Vista. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Check this out. Perhaps someone can edit this in somewhere if appropriate.
As part of that announcement, Microsoft reported that it has sold more than 60 million Windows 7 licenses to date. http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=5079&tag=nl.e539 Rasmasyean ( talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) hi i am amit chaudhary it is very efective windows. my email id - chaudhary1308@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.220.36 ( talk) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
technologiser should be technologizer
so
18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.". technologiser.com. http://technologiser.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/2/.
should be
18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.". technologizer.com. http://technologizer.com/2009/07/14/version-numbers/2/.
hope this helps
changed Thanks. PerthMod ( talk) 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
This section needs some serious cleanup. What does the marketing have to do with what version what users should run? Why is there a "However" in the section, which serves to echo one of the pointless complaints by people who like to spell Microsoft with a $? 72.43.206.210 ( talk) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
My main goal in reading the article was to find constructive and solid reasons to upgrade to Windows 7, but this not-very-relevant section was about as close as it came... I don't know if I'd say the section needs cleanup as much as a more neutral point of view, but overall the article was a disappointment. (That also includes two related articles linked to this one. I still don't have a good reason to buy from Microsoft--but that's never stopped them from forcing me to use their software anyway.) Shanen ( talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
In the infobox, why does it say "October 22, 2009; 4 month(s) ago"? Why not just "October 22, 2009", we don't need the "4 month(s) ago" part. That just looks weird. 76.67.211.253 ( talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Repositing Gartenberg's quote as a question at the bottom of the Antitrust section is an editorial comment and should be removed in the interest of neutrality. Kuritsubaji 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuritsubaji ( talk • contribs)
IMHO, the fact that Windows 7 is the current version of Windows being sold by Microsoft is relevant to this article. However, when I have inserted that information, it has twice been reverted. I still believe that it is relevant to include, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. So I'd like to know what other people think. Ithizar ( talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Whats in a Name! It works much better than Vista and thats more important!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.87.36 ( talk) 11:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
We need to add information on the new SSD support features. There are a number of articles covering this in pretty good detail.
I see there is a separate article on Features new to Windows 7 # Solid state drives that may be a better place for the details. In that case we just need to put something on this page about SSDs and link to that article. If I get a chance I will come back to do this myself after I complete other updates I have in process on the Storage articles. § Music Sorter § ( talk) 15:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
come on people windows 7 sp1 is available on microsoft no more leaked things please update the article thanks plaease do it i always come here to read the latest things about this
I propose an easier to read article layout as follows:
I think it may also make sense to just make a separate article for History of Windows 7 because it's getting rather lengthy. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 08:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the maintenance tags I put in this section were removed as excessive tagging and other comments I thought I would raise the issue here rather than readding them again.
Maintenance tags I added and why:
Of these only one has been fixed as of the time I am writing this but all these tags were removed because the were Excessive.
There are other entries that need additional citations also.
I can continue but most of the information is still not adequately sourced as a criticism. It is almost all just what some users feel are problems not what reliable sources see as problems. This section needs major work. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I went through the criticism section and made the following changes:
Since after going through the criticism section I could only find one statement that had a reliable source and because no consensus had been reached on adding a criticism section I moved the reliably sourced statement to the reception section. -- GrandDrake ( talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This section has been added to consolidate the multiple NPOV discussions, the multiple "No Criticism of Windows 7 Sections", Article layout issues, and other disinformation and/or misleading information in the article. It has been added to the top because it is a central issue in this article. Please don't move it to the bottom. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Several wikipedians have complained about the neutrality of this article. They specifically cite that there is no Criticism section. I have added one with dozens of references but these changes keep being undone by GB fan and GrandDrake. I have flagged the article as NPOV and NPOV-Check which have been undone by these authors as well. In an attempt to mislead readers, these two have buried any criticisms deep within a "Reception" section, a place most people are not likely to look and would require them to read 90% of the article which contains nothing but praise before they get to the bottom and read the criticism which has been trivialized and the majority of it suppressed. Whytehorse1413 ( talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Should there be a section on Windows features new in Windows 7, like Bitlocker? Willbennett2007 ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"Windows 7 will be succeeded by Windows 8, which has no release date as of yet."
That looks to me like a clear violation of the Wikipedia rule about not predicting the future. 69.37.3.221 ( talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Do not add this-it's speculative if you're talking about Windows 7-this belongs in the section on Windows 8 in History of Microsoft Windows. Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
This isn't speculative. Later, we had a conference on microsoft, to show the Windows 7 for ARM processors (it's a prototype, but, functional). They announed that the ARM support is done in Windows 8. 187.20.112.206 ( talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no source for any evidence of windows 7 running on arm systems, here's the video of the original press conference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKc_XGuvNIk it's been specified that they are demonstrating a future version of windows running arm platform, and had never said it's windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.83.218 ( talk) 09:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I have to say, the maximum number of logical processors is NOT per physical CPU, nor is it based on the actual core count. 256 hyper-threaded cores are not supported. In theory too, 2 processors of 256 threads each is also not supported. Do not add this again. Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
The current stable build is now 7601 (Service Pack 1) which was built on Friday 13th Janurary 2011 and was released to OEMS last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.3.201 ( talk) 08:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
The stable release of Windows 7 SP1 is available through Microsoft's website to download and install.
Pologoalie8908 ( talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I've noticed that many editors have entered grammatically incorrect info to this article. Just a reminder that grammar rules apply here. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} The "P" in "Service packs" needs to be capitalized. Under "Service packs" a subtitle that should be named "Service Pack 1" (for identifying Windows 7 Service Pack 1) is missing from the section. There also shouldn't be unnecessary information about Service Pack 1 due to the fact the section looks like a timeline instead of what the Service Pack brings to Windows 7. Also in the last three sentences of "Service packs" are almost duplicate information. Wangowiki ( talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Partly done: done for the second request, but Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. for the second.-- Breawycker ( talk to me!) Review Me! 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In the "Europe" section, there is an E randomly placed near where it says "Windows 7". Please remove it. Mrs. Betty ( talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} Within Hardware Requirements under MultiCore Processors, it states that 32 bit systems can handle upto 2 cores. However when checking the source it states that its 32 cores. Must have just been a typo but quite a major one. Bushell89 ( talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, everyone. I am surprised that so many people still do not know about the five pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's mission. I have recently deleted a paragraph about an error in Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 because it looked like another instance practicing the favorite sport of criticize-the-hell-out-of-Microsoft! A bunch of guys had encountered problems installing Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and a journalist exaggerating it into a world-wide crisis.
Computer errors happen everyday, people. Please don't make such a big deal out of them, unless there are strong evidences. Fleet Command ( talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
In the reception section license sales are listed. The over 300 million licenses sold reported on jan 27 should be specified better on the timeframe as it about sales up to dec 31st 2010 as listen in the Earnings Release FY11 Q2. http://www.microsoft.com/investor/EarningsAndFinancials/Earnings/PressReleaseAndWebcast/FY11/Q2/default.aspx.
Also a new sales figure has been posted on the windows team blog as of april 22nd of over 350 million licenses solds in the 18 month since the release. http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2011/04/22/windows-7-at-18-months.aspx 86.83.239.142 ( talk) 11:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
When reading about Windows 7 only supporting 2 physical CPUs I was surprised. Until I realized it was NOT talking about cores, but about CPUs. It would be good to remove discussion about the processors supported from the article, since no one has more than 1 physical CPU. It is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.5.139 ( talk) 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
| succeeded by windows 8 Andres3510 ( talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
| |
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial -- CommonsNotification ( talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) |
Please do not fill this field in with Windows 8 until it has been released. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The only change I would make to that is instead of using small text, use italic text. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have any sources to confirm the date of release in the brackets? -- JetBlast ( talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I decided to be bold even though I haven't contributed to the article before and swap the Features with the Development section. The previous article layout was set up before Windows 7 was released (see edits into 2009) when the development (including which versions of which beta had trojans) would have been of interest to most readers. Today, two years after the release, the main items of interest for most readers will be differences with previous versions (or with other OSes). This redesign was proposed earlier in the Talk page but the discussion got focused on a proposed reorganization of the Criticism section -- moving up features and down development was (in my quick read) only mentioned twice and both times positively. I think that the Development section can be trimmed (including things like the presence of trojans or not) since there is a separate subpage for that. But I only wanted to do one bold change at a time, since it's not an area I tend to edit in. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Today I noticed that Service Pack 1 is now listed under mandatory updates, while it previously was optional. I'm using Windows 7 Professional x86 (NL version). Can someone confirm this? If so, it would seem usefull to include this in the article for reasons of completeness.-- Blecchi ( talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC) |
Saraiki language must be added in windows.
Hiii
I am Using Window 7 Professional from one year. In my window I am not having the Bitlocker option. Please anyone can suggest why it so??
Further, Speed of my PC to slow, i work out at different areas to improve it but still it is same. Please suggest for any option which helps me to boost up my PCs speed.
regards, Sanddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.183.76 ( talk) 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I was skimming around and found out in the Development of Windows 7 that it is the 7th version of windows. Gregory Heffley ( talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
High sales numbers does not necessarily indicate that windows 7 is good. It could indicate that there are no viable alternatives in many countries like e.g. India and Microsoft Vista was so bad that people were waiting to upgrade from Windows XP This fact should be presented in right context The section seemed to be biased towards Windows 7 and Microsoft. How can you compare Harry Potter sales to Windows 7 My mother is in India does not read / cannot understand Harry Potter but she still needs to use Windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichinoy ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
An article dedicated to the criticism of Windows 7 needs to be written. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= 189.121.194.187 ( talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This is about another article, not a section in this article. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I would like to change all references in this article to IA-32 to x86, as this is the terminology used by, well, everyone - including Microsoft themselves. I could go with x86-32 as well. What do you think?
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirements
LarsHolmberg ( talk) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
What is name of boot loader used by Windows 7 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaseemjaved ( talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In the reception paragraugh, it says this - 'As of Januari 19, 2012, over 525 million copies have been sold.'
As you can see, January has been spelled wrong. Can some one please edit it as it isn't letting me edit the page. Thank you very much.
LGMarshall ( talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
According to Microsoft the general availability date of Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 was 2/22/2011. The reference currently given for the final release date of February 9, 2011 also appears to confirm a February 22nd release date. -- 75.186.114.141 ( talk) 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be noted that Windows Vista included several handwriting improvements as well. [1] ( I love entei ( talk) 06:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC))
It really should be mentioned that the overall "sales" of Windows 7 licenses are not just sales of the operating system. New PCs count towards this number (they're currently bundled with Windows 7), as do replacement licenses. This...misconception of sales figures should not continue to be perpetuated. It is misleading to consumers and the like who will construe it as overall sales of the operating system. ( MazaG20 ( talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TBrandley ( talk · contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the current release of Windows anymore since Windows 8 is now rolling out.
Can we get this updated?
Blimey I thought this would take longer to process. I am on the full version of Windows 8 hence the comment, still is there any need to demarcate, a particular version of Windows, as current? Then it would never need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.212.172 ( talk) 08:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Semi protection was set to expire Nov 5. It's now Nov 7 and it's still in effect and wasn't extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.120.250 ( talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I got here on a redirect from "Microsoft Image Backup" but the topic of the redirect isn't mentioned in the article. Is that an improvement from something? I'll go look at the history of the redirect maybe... Economy1 ( talk) 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
What about some information about this campaign? Galzigler ( talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello
Today I reverted no less than 20 edits by User:LittleBenW. I inspected every single one of them and unfortunately all were problematic. To summarize, problems include:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
How are previous versions created?
Previous versions are automatically saved as part of a restore point. If system protection is turned on, Windows automatically creates previous versions of files and folders that have been modified since the last restore point was made. Typically, restore points are made once a day. If your disk is partitioned or if you have more than one hard disk on your computer, you need to turn on system protection for the other partitions or disks. Previous versions are also created by Windows Backup when you back up your files.
— "Previous versions of files: frequently asked questions". Windows Help. Microsoft. Retrieved 25 March 2013.