Talk:Windows 7/Archive 7

Windows 7 is NOT really version 7

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)."

1. Microsoft Windows NT 3.1x,
2. Microsoft Windows NT 3.5x,
3. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0,
4. Microsoft Windows 2000,
5. Microsoft Windows XP,
6. Microsoft Windows Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan.opitz (talk • contribs) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Windows NT family starts with 3.1, which was the first windows. Only reasons of clarity in relation to the classical DOS/9X line, it was not called NT 1.0!
• Major upgrades are indicated by the first digit before and after the comma! More decimal places usually have only a minimal role, and suggest little updates!
• The 6.1 is the same as like 5.0 (Win2000) to 5.1 (WinXp). It is a major version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan.opitz (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• The fact of the compatibility is only an additional goodie, because older programs primarily consider the first digit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

What is your source saying that Microsoft chose the name "7" because of the number of Windows NT releases? You saying that if not for NT 3.1 it would be called "Windows 6" and MS would ignore the fact that Vista was version 6.0? Look, it's just a name. It was going to be version 7.0, so "Windows 7," but they changed the version number used in the OS for compatibility, it's still the same kind of upgrade. Windows 1 (1), Windows 2 (2), Windows 3.x (3), Windows 95-ME (4), Windows 2000-XP (5), Windows Vista (6), Windows 7 (cheating a little, but 7). This is a release to consumers, so they were counting the main consumer releases' version numbers. If you're going to count something like 3.1, then you need to count more recent server versions (2003, 2008) and bump the version number even higher. Althepal (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

What you are doing is mixing different development approaches of the DOS/9X & the NT Family, where 7 belongs to! You have to count the major versions and not the derivates (e.g.: is windows 7 a server version - no! therefore exists Win srv 2008R2 with the server in the name)! Read the points above, so that all not so cling to this story NT x.x! Count the major-versions of the NT family and not the derivates - so it is logical!!

All right. That's it. Can somebody get a screenshot of command prompt in Windows 7? It should have the version number. I want this settled once and for all.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Or, an alternate source for the version number: [1].--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh. That's the source used in the article too.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not the NT x.x is the important fact or the NT in the name! Why all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions! Think about it! Windows NT 3.1 was the first Windows NT and Windows 7 appears to be the series final. This was because of the ease of comprehension in comparison to DOS/Win9X-product line. Major versions have a different first digit before and after the comma. It is not important here that Windows 7 also is NT 7.0, because it is the NT family and line. Since the major versions are! Therefore again: Why are all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions. Looks at the origins of the development = NT = New Technology. So avoid look to DOS/9X in any version or derivative ala server! Does Windows Server 2008r2 called Windows 8 ;-) Who says that a product must start with version 1.0 and then 1.1 or 2.0 must come! NO ONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.199.87 (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Therefore, firstly reconsider what are the major versions and then count them! So as a result the seventh Windows is Windows 7!

Look, the infobox calls for a version number, so a version number is used. I have added all of this to the FAQ. No additional discussion on the matter is necessary.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I would argue that Vista has had less blue screens for me than XP, but, I don't even want to start that flame war/this is not a forum. If it's the seventh release (I have no idea if it is or not), they still made it version 6.1, so that they could cross-check compatibility (or something like that).--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I can follow the argumentation above and can say the internal version has nothing todo with the number of major versions & the counting! So this has to be added to the article! Too bad the facts do not play! Version numbers after the second decimal place makes no sense. These are only small updates! Major releases are the first before and after the comma! Think of recordable as MacOsX or other developments! And again: Why all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions! It is the 7th release of the origin nt family! Count it or try to understand the numbering above!

You're not listening. The infobox calls for a version number, as in, the internal software version number. I understand that it is the seventh in the family of Windows operating systems, but it is not version 7.0. The source used ([2]) provides verification for both of these facts.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

However, I did notice that there is no mention (other than a hidden comment) of the fact that it is the seventh in the OS family. I'm not quite sure where this should be added though...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 18:51, 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)

and as also said above, the NT series theory is bogus. What about the Server releases (Server 03 was 5.2 and considered a major NT release) all theories are OR. It is just a name chocobogamer mine 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Server releases are based on the same kernel code base as their client counterparts (NT/NT Server, 2000/2000 Server, XP/Server 2003 and so on) plus, since 7 is a client side OS, even if ther Server line was completely separate, why would they count it in naming a client version? JasonJD48 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the logic was that Vista was version 6.0, so they call it Windows 7, but, for compatibility, the version number was made 6.1. I don't understand how that increases compatibility myself, but that's what the source says.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:31, 1 November 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)

omfg. this is the third time I have to tell you guys the source for all of this... [3]--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question Unionhawk, hardware and software look at the 'major version' identifier on the OS. In this case 6.x, In xp/2K it was 5.x, hence the excellent compat with those versions, and anon, there doesnt have to be any logical reason for it being called 7. It doesn't have to even refer to anything to do with numbering (although they have explained this as myself and UH have referenced) Jeez Windows 98SE wasn't called Windows 99 even though it was released in 99. chocobogamer mine 14:37, 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)

So a have to break a lance. It is not just a name: It is for the seventh version. This is the only official statement from Microsoft. Only one approach, gives a clear answer. It is not the trash nash blog! It makes no sence so we see it all - he collects all windows versions ever and pushes in a doubtful and discussable order. Why you do not really discuss the NT family approach! A major version is defined by a new functionaly and innovations like the GUI - this was so all the time. And Windows Server 2008R2 is not communicated as Windows 8. Its only a derivate like the WinXp 64 version. It is like counting the "abc" with the special chars eg. a with apostroph!

"The version number was chosen to match the one of Windows 3.1, the then-latest operating environment from Microsoft, on account of the similar visual appearance of the user interface. Two editions of NT 3.1 were made available, Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT Advanced Server. It was succeeded by Windows NT 3.5 in September 1994." So no one has to say it has to be NT 7.0.

I'm on the line with the guy of the NT approach, which only gives me a clear explanation, because it is so clear that there i do not need any source - its a self-explanation one. Sry it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.61.72 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This though sounding sensible (the reasoning 2 paragraphs up for the NT3.1 numbering), is of course not true. Microsoft's own internal docs indicate that the number was picked so (a) it would not seem like a new OS, and (b) would seem (to the computer un-savvy) to be technologically un par with the Win16 line as opposed to people assuming that Win3.1 was better because it had a higher number than Windows NT 1.0 - there was a whole discussion online back in the day about them not wanting to confuse customers by using the v1.x starting point because of that. As that too is irrelevant, I will not cite references...

That, sadly is the real truth behind the NT3.1 numbering. But that is all irrelevant to this discussion.

This product is named "Windows 7" - whether because Microsoft picked a number out of a hat, had nefarious reasons for doing so, had technical reasons for doing so, were counting release numbers to come up with the number seven, whatever. It is called Windows 7.

So, my opinion is, regardless of how long this debate rages on here, it is irrelevant to the article itself in every respect - unless Microsoft clearly spells out how they came up with the name, in which case it barely (and at most) rates an anecdotal mention. Again, that is just my opinion.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:31, 5 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)

...since it was commonly known that Vista is NT6 Microsoft probably though they would score some points from public and make some distance to disaster called Vista. --Dekonega (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that this discussion is pointless. It's Windows 7 since MS chose to call it that. Just like they called XP Windows XP and not Windows 2002. Win95 could have been called Windows 4.0, but instead it was Windows 95. Move on with your lives! If you don't like it, don't use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.177.112 (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The last three posts make no sence @ all! Only trash arguments. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista - I laughed so much! The name is, because its the seventh version. Like in XP where it was for Xperience! This is not comparable with like xp or vista! Think about the major-NT-family development counting! This is the only understandable version! I also support this approach! Its self-explaning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.202.230 (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out this video and ask for you guys to watch it. Microsoft really omitted Windows ME and Windows 2000 when counting towards 14 and they got 7 from a simple math equation. Point is that they argued Windows 7 being 7th major release of Windows for home consumers. But that's not true. Please watch this video and read the article: [4] Writer above pointed out valid point that NT line of versions shouldn't be mixed with Windows GUI program which runs on top of DOS. Windows NT is complete stand alone operating system and other Windows releases are not. --Dekonega (talk) 10:10, 7 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)

I believe that Microsoft Windows department counted 13 Windows releases and came up with name Windows 14 but Microsoft Marketing & PR department didn't like it and divided it with two to make it look younger yet reliable software release. ;) No way! :D But honestly it's really weird. While Vista was completely new NT Windows Seven is just something build on top of Vista so it's entirely correct decision to call it NT6.1. And it's not because of the compability because truth is that Windows Seven is NT 6.1 because it's built on top of Vista which is NT 6.0. This is just like in case of Windows 2000 and Windows XP where 2k is NT5.0 and XP is NT5.1.

At German Wikipedia people have came up with few good theories why 14th Windows release is called Windows Seven...

Counting NT releases:

1. Windows NT 3.1x
2. Windows NT 3.5x
3. Windows NT 4.0
4. Windows NT 5.0 (2000)
5. Windows NT 5.1 (XP)
6. Windows NT 6.0 (Vista)
7. Windows NT 6.1 (Seven)

• Major problem is that OS/2 forms numbers 1-3 and there are other missing releases like NT5.2 which was server only release. Limiting this line of thinking only to desktop/workstation releases.

Counting major numbers:

1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0 (Windows/286)
3. Windows 3.x and Windows NT 3.x (Windows 3.1)
4. Windows 4.x (Windows 95, 95 OCR, 98, 98 SE, ME)
5. Windows 5.x (Windows 2000, Windows XP)
6. Windows 6.0 (Windows Vista)
7. Windows 6.1 (Windows Seven)

• Problem with that one is that Seven should be named "Windows Six".

Counting OS family members:

1. OS/2 1.0
2. OS/2 2.0
3. Windows NT 3.x
4. Windows NT 4.0
5. Windows NT 5.0 (2000, XP, Server 2003)
6. Windows NT 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008)
7. Windows NT 6.1 (Seven, Server 2008 R1)

• Problem with that one is that Seven should be named "Windows Six".

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

• Most believable answer to this puzzle. I think this is the truth but it has problems like forgetting versions 1.0 and 2.0

We pretty much know that Microsoft counts them like this:

1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 2.0
3. Windows 3.0
4. Windows Windows 95
5. Windows Windows XP
6. Windows Windows Vista
7. Windows Windows Seven

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)

Dekonega, your major mistake with the OS/2 reasoning is that OS/2 2.0 was IBM's release. There was supposed to be a Microsoft/IBM version, but that never got released under the name OS/2. It was turned into Windows NT 3.x as MS OS/2 only formed #1-1 with a planned 2.

That aside, I'd wager money that it is none of the above, and probably not whatever marketing reason Microsoft is currently spinning (like this claim above "major releases... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista" - Windows 95 was not a major release. Windows 98 on the other hand was. Win95 was still mostly Win3.1 with a little borrowed eye candy (check out IBM EWS WPSfWIN one day to see just how easy adding an OO acting shell to Win3.1 to make it Win95 like is) Win95 was still Win3.1 with some 32 bit extensions on top of DOS, while Win98 added a lot more into the 32bit arena).

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am really bad at explaining this. OS/2 was Microsoft and IBM project where first two releases were worked together. OS/2 3.0 was IBM's project but they moved it to Microsoft which on the other hand broke the deal and released OS/2 3.0 as NT 3.0. And besides most of these are not my theories except of the one where counting starts from "Windows 3.0" and we forget existence of the "Windows 1.0" and "Windows 2.0". I disagree with you about Windows 95 not being major release. It was huge release and extremely major. Windows 98 on the other hand was more like fixed version of the Windows 95.

Besides my point was that there is not a one single explanation there and we should just write to wikipedia that "Windows 7 is 14th major Windows release even though the name implies that it's the 7th". --Dekonega (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The people at Microsoft would disagree as to the naming reasons. Their reasons stated to us (CompUSA) were the ones posted. Yes, NT 3 started based off the OS/2 3 project. Yes, disks even existed of betas indicating such. No, that is not the reason they used the number. Or they later tried to downplay the tie-ins to OS/2. Regardless, that is not their official reason as disseminated to us. Which is also the reason why it was released as Windows NT 3.1 and not Windows NT 3.0

Additionally, having been a programmer for years, having been both Microsoft's Windows support rep AND IBM's OS/2 support rep AND having been privy to both companies' beta codes, AND having knowledge of what is "behind the scenes" in both OS's, popular opinion aside, Windows 95, while seeming like a major release to the public, was not a major release and was very heavily dependant on DOS - almost as much as Win3.1 and earlier versions. Win98 was the first version to end much of those dependencies, even though the look of the two were similar and the look of Win95 was "drastically" different than Win3.1. The Win95 GUI functionality is something that IBM programmers created for Win3.1 (specifically for WinOS/2, but should work under Win3.1 as well) in under a megabyte of code (except it worked better no less).

As for it being the 14th major release, do we go with your count? Microsoft's count? Your reasoning? Mine? Someone else's? Even though I may be inclined to agree it is far from the 7th major release, and maybe is at or near the 14th, how is that citable? Who do we cite? Microsoft's marketing material which grossly contradicts itself with each new release? Microsoft's version numbers, which due to the amount of additional appropriated code in the NT code base (DEC to be more specific) indicate that using the never released (as) MS OS/2 v3 would also be inaccurate?

See the point? How can such a claim be made with nothing citable that makes sense or isnt contradicted ad infinitum elsewhere (often numerous times by Microsoft themselves)? Either that, or that one line you propose would require an entire paragraph much like the discussion being had here... something akin to (loosely paraphrased and severely chopped for brevity): "Windows 7, by Dekonega's and others' count is the 14th major release of... But by Microsoft's count, based on pre-release marketing material during the Win98 days and counting forward would be... But by Microsoft's current stance would be... but by Microsoft's internal version numbering would be... but by 32bit release count would be... but by 32bit home use capable versions (as defined by...) would be... but when counting the never released MS OS/2 v3 that NT is only partially based on would be..."

That is why I think it is really totally irrelevant when there is no citable information that is in agreement. We (you, me, numerous others) cant agree on it. Microsoft themselves backpedaled on this numerous times in the past, present and probably the future (releasing different answers depending on who asks the question even).

The closest to most accurate statement would simply be "Windows 7 is the 7th major release based off the Windows NT product line" (NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 - skipping 3.51 which had "two" major enhancements... PPC version (ok... 1 major enhancement) and support for interoperating with Windows 95 (which actually didnt come with it, bringing it to zero major enhancements)).

Thus, on their 32bit and 32/64bit OS line, it would be the 7th major release (skipping the debate over it just being a fixed version of Vista).

Regardless, a paragraph explaining why it is the nth major release seems a "little" ludicrous when no one can agree on the value of n.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As stated on the Windows NT Family page: "The first release was MS Windows NT 3.1 (1993), numbered "3.1" to match the consumer Windows version, which was followed by NT 3.5 (1994)" - though no citation is linked to that text, hundreds of such statements can be found online - which jive with my memory of the reasoning Microsoft provided us at CompUSA.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 18:49, 10 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 logochocobogamer mine 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

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)

yes, but in no way shape or form is it the 7th release which is why ppl are arguing. even the NT theory is wrong as 3.11 was considered major yadiyaya chocobogamer mine 22:11, 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)

Airplaneman: Incorrect. It is "Windows 7" because that is what Microsoft named it. Plain and simple. There is no other publicly known reason why it is named "Windows 7" - anything else is either their marketing reason (which does no jive with any other statement they have made in the past) or speculation on our part.

The biggest complaint I have seen about Wikipedia is the inaccuracy of the content on it. I believe that NOT to be true. I believe the problem lies in the inaccuracy of the portrayal of the content.

A pertinent "for instance" would be the statement above on the reason Windows 7 was named Windows 7. I can cite numerous Microsoft statements from the past that rip it apart. It is entirely untrue in any sense, no matter how anyone counts (unless, like in the conversations above, people use whatever caveat they deem fit so that the count adds up to "7").

Thus, as a for instance about incorrect portrayal, to include something like that in the article without it leading to a false conclusion, it should be cited as "John Doe, (insert title here) claims that... (his quote)" - emphasis mine to point out the key word in the statement.

This would be similar to claiming/citing that Windows Vista is "the fastest version of Windows ever" - which is another (verbatim) claim Microsoft made, which also is untrue except in the most retarded, unused scenarios. That statement too is patently false, but still could be included as a reference to whomever said it.

In one method, the statement is misleading and false, cited or not. Adding that so-and-so claims it, on the other hand, does not indicate a bias on Wikipedia's part that such a statement is true - it just indicates that someone at Microsoft claims such.

Which brings us full circle. Microsoft's bogus reasoning and statement aside, this release is named "Windows 7"

This debate is truly kinda absurd. I can go buy an older Firebird, which is "really" just a Camaro of the same year... nonetheless, it is still a Firebird, because that is what it was named. This is "Windows 7" - regardless of the true, unreleased reason for the naming.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If we cited it as "claims that...", then we would have weasel wording problems...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 20:45, 15 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)

This is just going around in circles. I'm just saying what the source says. The source says it, so that's what we should put, if we even mention that it's the seventh release at all (which I'm not certain is necessary).--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking around I found Mike Nash's explanation for the quote you posted.

“ 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

If that's their logic then it doesn't matter what we say I guess. Not counting XP as a new release since it was 5.1 but counting Win7 as a release is contradictory IMO. That said, I don't think putting that it's the seventh release in the article will add anything but confusion. --NYR56 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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. :) NoNews! 04:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Time zones

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)

Never mind, it was put back without the '7'... --DanielPharos (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-autocomfirmed edit to protected page

Please insert the following template into the Marketing section:

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)

Bare ULRs

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)

Reference 18 is broken

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)

An alternative reference has been found.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows 7

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)

That doesn't look like a WP:RS. Just because something's on the Internet doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I've only heard positive reviews about Windows 7. The main people who don't like it have never tried it, because they can't afford to upgrade their computers from XP to 7. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The same is true for Vista SP1 as well. :) Leo Natan (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely, for a unbiased view, criticism should be presented the viewers as well. I really enforce that this article should have a criticism section, as almost all others articles do. It could be very brief, just summarizing mains critics the product have, possibly pointing to a main article Criticism of Windows Vista (as all other windows do have) and to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. It maybe pertinent to also has reference to Criticism of Microsoft. DeStilaDo (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Dead cites are no more

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)

Yes, but it really does us no good to only have the title. I'm going to go through all the references and change them to the appropriate citation template.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Problems in Windows 7

ok no body have mantioned the problems inside the windows 7 every body is taking about its benifits. so i am going to remove the curtain of windows 7. i am faisal from pakistan and as a lecturer in KARDAN university http://www.kardan.edu.af. The problems which i have faced are

1. visual basic 6.0 is not posssible to installed in it
2. in sqlserver 2000 every process is doing but we are not able to create the table in design mode.

so therefore again i have jumped to windows XP. if any one got the solution for that he will contact me on faisal@kardan.edu.af —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.86.26.182 (talk) 19:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Read the system requirements of Visual Basic 6 and SQLServer 2000. Do they mention Windows 7 as being supported? (Even though it *should* work, I'd hardly call this criticism of Windows 7.) --DanielPharos (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OMG for a lecturer you don't seem to be clued up on software. VB6 came out in 1998, 11 years prior to the release of W7. Since then there have been several VB releases including .Net etc. For goodness sake you had incompatibility issues between original XP and service pack 1 causing incompatibility with software built for XP (particularly games like Simpsons Hit & Run, which I experienced BSoDs between the service pack). VB6 was built for Windows 4.x not for use a decade later. chocobogamer mine 23:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

a major problem with notebooks and windows 7 is its inability to deal with the battery correctly. possibly due to a ACPI driver problem. it is affecting most hp laptops and some others. windows 7 thinks that the battery is flat when it actually isnt. also it is either damaging the batteries or not allowing them to fully charge. often reducing uptime to under 30minutes. (from 3hours previously on vista) this problem hasnt been dealt with by hp or microsoft. a hot thread on the topic can be found here http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprohardware/thread/c6c043e6-eeb1-4e61-870d-896ca2f865d6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.235.174 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned about the inability to upgrade from XP

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)

Well, the protection has expired now, so feel free to update the page. Also, you might want to update Windows 7 Editions as well. 58.171.3.220 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I added a couple sentences about the upgrade path for XP users. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I created a new section called Setup. 12.165.250.13 (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved your sentences to the "Features Removed from Windows 7" as this is where they mainly belong. Leo Natan (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Semi-unprotect

{{editsemiprotected}}

If you want the page unprotected, ask at the requests for page protection page.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  228° 14' 45" NET   15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New Windows 7 Screenshot

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)

I've looked at the articles for other Windows versions and they all seem to show the start menu, so for the purposes of consistancy it is probably best left on. 120.152.83.169 (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

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)

As far as I'm aware, there is no "extensive hardware compatibility and performance issues" with Windows 7, especially if you not count driver issues. Could you point to some good sources? If you can do that, there at least is a chance it might make it into the article. --DanielPharos (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, it was Vista that was a pain in the ass with compatability issues. Everyone I know that uses 7 hasn't had any issues, beyond one who was seeing if his older parts would work for kicks. Are you sure you're not using Vista? -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've used the beta since December 2008 and the RC since May/June 2009, and the RTM since this November, and I haven't encountered any hardware compatibility issues, nor any performance issues. Like the previous responders, I'm pretty unclear on what you refer to. Even my old 3G USB modem whichi was made for XP and was somehow compatible with Vista, works excellent with Win7 - a lot better than with Vista, even. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It is correct that Windows 7 is compatible with nearly every hardware you could run under Vista. See the accordantpress-releases.

There additionally is this tool with which you can check this before you upgrade.

If you don't, it's your problem; but nothing to be discussed in WP. -88.130.81.7 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone who believes there should be a larger portion dedicated to critism. I have windows 7 on a very good PC and it runs horribly slow. I HATE it right now, I am in the process of trying to make it run faster, but I shouldnt have to go through this. And if I was the ONLY person who had problems with windows 7 I wouldnt say anything, but clearly I am not the only one173.62.181.145 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Beware of blatant misinformation on several sources about the 'superiority' and 'uniqueness' of windows 7

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)

@Point 3: No, that's not possible/doable. For instance, Vista doesn't support WDDM1.1 drivers, and there's a lot of other changes to the kernel, UAC, etc. which would/could break backwards compatibility or backwards "compatible experience" (people wouldn't update because they get "more annoying messages", and thus miss out on important security patches etc.).

Also, if you say Win7 is just Vista take two, then where do you draw the line? Win95 was just Win 3.11, but they changed the user interface (done that in 2000->XP too). Windows is just DOS with a GUI, etc. Because just about all software is based on previous versions, when does something become "new"/"a new major release"? In this case, I think people decided to follow Microsoft's own version number scheme. Vista = 6.1 Win7 = 7, so it's a major release.

As for carefully checking sources to filter out people that don't know what they are talking about: I completely agree! --DanielPharos (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Win95 was just Win 3.11, but they changed the user interface"

I am staggered that people still make that sort of claim. Win 95 was significantly different to Win 3.x on pretty much every level. Have a browse through "Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King - Microsoft Press 1994 ISBN: 1 55615 626 X —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.121.22 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Very very little software is new and unique, every new version is based to varying degrees on its predecessors. What constitutes attibutes like 'unique' and 'superior' is a matter of opinion, some liked XP out of the gate, others feel it didn't hit its stride until SP1 or SP2, and yes XP is built on the codebase and kernel of Windows 2000, but it was very much more developed, both to incorporate new technologies and to adapt it to inherit the comsumer OS role from the 9x line. I would also add that I know many smart and knowledgable 17 year olds, I don't generalize by age, and I ignore ignorant 'fanboys' of all types and ages (including the many Linux and Apple ones out there)JasonJD48 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 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)

Official numbers are in. 60 million licenses sold.

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)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. But rather a forum of improving the article. Western Pines (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows 7

I don't see why there shouldn't be a separate article, considering the criticism on the battery degradation bug, the unpatched vulnerabilities etc. just as all the other Windows versions have. --151.64.237.79 (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, just as all the other versions of windows.

I don't think this battery-bug is of any importance here: No reliable sources and fixed. And even before: No bug for most users, because most people do use a desktop PC.

It is enough to have the vulnerabilities in the general Windows article, which is already the case. -88.130.81.7 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Jwroosch (talk) 18:51, 5 March 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)

Marketing

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)

The Infobox

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)

It's a template used in many places to help the reader see how old a program is Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an automated template. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. How do I fix this? 76.67.211.253 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Now it looks even more weird. The OS was released on October 22, 2009. That was five months ago. The infobox still says "4 month(s) ago". This really should be removed. How do I do it? 76.67.211.253 (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Content

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)

Notation of Current Version

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)