Next Windows OS is Windows 7
MICROSOFT HAS MADE IT official. The new name for the next Windows Operating System will be – take a breath, sit down – Windows 7.
Mike Nash, Volish Veep of Windows product management, made the announcement in a blog post last night in which he did his best to explain Microsoft’s previous fuzzy logic in the naming of Windows software.
Nash noted that after starting with a logical, if nerdy sounding, version numbering system the company then moved on from names like “Windows 3.11” to naming the OS by its year of release. This worked for Windows 95 through ‘98 until it was deemed impractical by the Redmond Giant, since it didn’t ship new versions every year. Next came what Nash calls "the aspirational monikers” stage in which the Vole tried to be clever, cool and, er, random.
Windows Me supposedly stood both for the Millennium and “me, myself and I”. It was also a bit crap, so the company quickly binned it and came up with Windows XP in 2001. No one knew what XP stood for [er, eXPerience, wasn't it? Ed.], but it sounded techy and funky, so it stuck.
Windows Vista continued in the totally random and meaningless name trend, only remotely useful name-wise for when we all happily shout “hasta la vista” when we chuck it out the, er, Window.
And so now comes Windows 7, a name which supposedly reflects the build numbers as opposed to actual releases. Some think the new naming scheme could be an indication Microsoft wants to speed up release rates and up the competition with Apple, while others think that another bombastic name would take up too much media attention, drowning Vista once and for all.
But Nash has a more straightforward explanation, "Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," he says.
We make it about the 25th version of Windows but, as we learned with Word 6.0, Microsoft seems to have a different number if fingers and toes to the rest of us. µ
L’Inq
Nash’s
blog
Share this:
Business Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
If you open winver utility or search for "about" in any program that did come with Windows, it shows Windows version. For Windows XP, that is 5.1. Vista should be 6.x, and I suppose, that Windows 95, 98, and NT4 had version 4.x and Windows ME and 2000 5.0 or something. If we follow this versioning logic, Windows 7 should have version 7.x.
Skipped this one? NT 4 lurks in the numero scheme somewhere.
I think windows should be named on it's success rate & general impression on the public, per build.

DOS windows/for workgroups
DOS IRQ FAIL GUI 95
DOS Plug n' Pray emulator 98
FAILED DOS emulator ME
DOS emulator stable XP
Epic fail DOS emulator Vista
DOS emulator 7

Other memorable mentions;

NT SP6 fail last known good configuration 4
NT gaming fail stable 2000
NT IE browsing fail 2003

There are of course more sub-versions & editions...like the fabulous Win95 OSR 2.5
Or the Win98 SE...


But anyways, you can clearly see why MS chose "7".
It just makes sense, right?
um... Window1, 2 and 3, windows 95, windows 98, windows ME, windows XP, windows Vista. 

That's eight if I've countsed correctly.


Okay, you have the "normal" windows family (the one that consists of elaborate DOS shells) that goes something like this:
Windows
Windows 2
Windows 3, 3.1, 3.11
Windows 4.xx = Win95, 98, and ME, I believe

Then you have the NT core family which is what Vista is an evolution of
NT
NT 2
NT 3 and 3.51
NT 4
NT 5 = Windows 2000 & XP 
NT 6 = Vista
and now NT 7 = Windows 7. 

There are a couple of branches in the Windows family tree.
Really it is about time this happened. It means the marketing department has been slapped down. Hopefully the UAC guys took a hit as well. If you develop code you can look in Program Files at the names of various compiliers from MSFT. You will see stuff like Microsoft Visual Studio .NET 2003 or Microsoft Visual Studio 9.0. Guess what 9.0 works much better, because it isn't about marketing it is about the product. I bet 7 kicks ass.
I am guessing they are looking at it like this...

95, 98, 98SE, and ME are the windows 4 Family
2000, XP, and MCE are the Windows 5 family
Vista is the Windows 6 family
Windows 7 is, wait for it, the windows 7 family. the only problem here is that I thought Windows 7 was based on vista which would make it windows 6 family wouldn't it?
I think you are wrong, those numbers are relative to the WinNT roots, on which all newer desktop versions of windows have been based.
what a bunch of ignorants, I guess you have too much of a life to learn this fact ;)
Windows Wibble would be my suggestion or Wuh Wuh for short.
Seems to be some slight inaccuracies posted concerning the "New Technology" (NT) versions of the Micr0$ucks LoseDoze O/S families:

LoseDoze NT v3.5 / v3.51
LoseDoze NT v4
LoseDoze NT v5.0 (LoseDoze 2000)
LoseDoze NT v5.1 (LoseDoze XP)
LoseDoze NT v5.2 (LoseDoze XP x64)
LoseDoze NT v6.x (LoseDoze Vista)

The 16-bit (LoseDoze 3.x, WFW 3.11) and hybrid 32-bit (LoseDoze 95, 98, ME) version numbers were a completely different product, the numbers have no correlation to the "New Technology" (NT) that was REAL 32-bit products.

HB
In the beginning there was DOS. DOS started at 1.0, reached a peak at 3.3 and finally died at 7 inside Win95/98. Windows also started at 1.0, reached a peak at 3.1.1 (Windows for Workgroups) and finally died with Win98SE. All of these versions REQUIRED DOS and thus were not true operating systems. Windows ME was a strange hybrid and dead end anyway. Then there was the NT line. It started with the ill-fated IBM OS/2 joint venture and took over the Windows name with NT 3.5. This is the basis of every Windows since and the major numbering. NT again at 4.0. Win2K/XP are NT 5.0. Vista is 6.0. Thus the next major is 7. This assumes that it is not just some lipstick on Vista
Windows 1, 2, 3, 95, 98, and Me are not based on NT kernels, so they don't fit in with the numbering scheme.

Windows NT 3.1 = The first verstion, presumably named 3.1 to match the then current version of the 16 bit Windows.

Windows NT 4.0 = The GUI matched Windows 95's.

Windows 2000 (5.0) = Things like USB support, device manager, and DirectX support.

Windows XP (5.1) = The first NT Windows targeted towards consumers.

Windows Vista (6.0) = ...

Windows 7 (7.0?)
complete nubs i swear.
3.11, 95. 98, ME have NOTHING to do with the version 7 numbering. 
just so you people can understand i'll make it simple and clear.
Windows NT 3.0
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 - NT5
Windows XP - NT5.1
Windoes VISTA - NT6

Microsoft have yet to release an operating system that 'works' before a service pack, usually the 3rd one's the charm. Use a real OS. any other really.
Tentative names included Windows Blackcomb, Windows Vienna, WindOS X, 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
Vista was probably ruined by those new degree holders coming out of india, who don't have much programming know how etc. so made the os like donkeys urine.

This time they need some proper veterans with the exp. And hopefully it won't crawl a latest hardware - like some bad programmer built emulators for the pc do. But then these are school boys trying their skills at things, so it ain't bad.

As for MS they should not try and cut corner or be too smart with all the DRM horse poo otherwise it might just come back and bite them on the bal*s.

Come on, anyone who is into dodgy business is obviously going to have whatever os they need including linux or older version of windows 9x etc. to get their job done.

Anyway.
Jon.
Microsoft Next Consule is reported as 720. Like 720P, Not anything to do with Lucky 7.

When Alpha starts up. Maybe disc will have Name on It.
USB 3.0 Is CodeNamed: Late2009, for Practical!
Levono has nice $400 Desktop D210 w/monitor. 7 probably be called Beta or something.

Drashek
No wonder windblows sucks, they can't even count.
DOS 1-6

Alongside it Windows 1,2, 286/386, 3.0-3.11

WINDOWS 95!

Alongside it NT 3.51 (Never heard of 1 or 2)

Windows 98 alongside NT 4

WINDOWS ME! wtf? It's 98 but with bad shiny stuff stuck on it. 

Snark, let's just drop the 9X Windows and just go with 2000, which was NT 5

Windows XP which is NT 5.1....eh, exciting compared to

VISTA! Which is NT 6 something or other.

Next is WINDOWS 7! Yeah! NT 7!

And let's confuse them even more by trying to act like 95, 98 and ME never happened, we just went from 3.11 to NT 4. Yeah, that's it.....
what do you paste eaters think "the world" uses as an OS? what a bunch of whiners. and no, W7 is not based on 'vista': it's based on the 'longhorn' server. must be a bunch of linux 'users' (ie., the os(s) that don't make the grade, but are "superior to windows"...). steve jobs is a cross-dresser (al la marie antoinette...(let them eat cake!") sorta lad). a real craftsman/artist never blames his tools (only 'tools' do)...buncha whiners...
I really think this is going to be the windows for the future. After bugging vista and teething hardware, this one should be the one. It took xp a long time to be what it should, theres no reason they cant get one more version right
Windows Server 2000.
Windows Server 2003.
Windows Server 2008.

They should name it like that.

Also, Windows 4 Workgroups, where does that fit in?

Will Windows 7 have 7 different price points?

Will it have a normal backup app so I can select the files I want to backup? Ffs that was so dumb, whoever spec'd that needs a hard kick out the door.
It seems to me that no matter what name Microsoft would've chosen, you guys would complain.

Windows 7? Ha ha, M$ can't count
Windows <Name>? Ha ha, <Name> is stooopid
Windows <Year>? Ha ha, they'll never manage to release that thing in quality until <Year>
<NewName>? Ha ha, M$ trying to get rid of Windows brand

Anyway, I like Windows 7 (can be shortened to Win7 nicely on IM or Twitter)
Why not Vista 2? 
It would definitely help with the marketing of the new OS:
"U all thought Vista was da shizznit?...well u ain't seen nothing yet... Vista 2 - Revenge of the Broken OS(TM) comming to a PC near u"
The evolution of the 32/64 bit Windows was like this as I remember it:
Windows NT 3.1 (The first 32 bit OS released by MS. Windows 3.1 Interface, otherwise, totally different from the 16 bit windows)
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51 (improved and useable version of Windows NT 3.1... this is the first version of Windows NT that actually started to sell... mostly on cheap servers and workstations)
Windows NT 4.0 (New interface. Adopted big-time by many corporations)
Windows 2000 (Really Windows NT 5.0. First version of Windows NT that was useable for gaming)
Windows XP/Windows Server 2003 (Really Windows NT 5.1)
Windows XP/Server 2003 (Really Windows NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (Really Winodws NT 6.0)

And that means the next version of Windows is V7... or version 6.1 if it's just an update of Vista.

Note that versions of Windows prior to Windows NT 3.1 have little or nothing in common with the version of Windows everyone uses today, aside from interface similarities. That includes Windows 2.xx, Windows 3.xx, Winodws 3.xx for Workgroups and Windows 95/98/ME
Why Windows 7? It's easy to see. Bill Gates -> Jerry Seinfeld -> George Constanza (Jason Alexander) -> Seven (the name George wanted to use for his first-born).

See that explains it all.