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}}}|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)

Geez, this has gone on too long. First off, as has been stated, Win7 is NOT the seventh version of Windows. Its all marketing. Lets face it, the OS's people remember are Windows 3/3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and Vista. So from the consumer standpoint, Windows 7 is the seventh version of Windows. Secondly, Microsoft wanted to get as far away from Vista as they could. so there would be no way Microsoft would use "Windows 6", as Vista was the NT Kernal's six revision. Stop trying to make sense out of a marketing decision. --151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps they should have waited when the REAL NT 7.0 comes out and call that version "Windows 7". Now there'd surely be some mix-up in the future when NT 7.0 is released (unless Microsoft decides to skip it). NoNews! 09:20, 15 July 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)

Wikipedia isn't a forum. Keep it on topic.

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)

Not every article has a criticism section and for example there isn't one for Linux, Ubuntu (operating system), Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Snow Leopard. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

After reading the FSF article I would say that it is not a reliable source. The FSF article makes some statements that are just wrong (that there is a version of Windows 7 which limits the number of applications that can run), a lot of the article is personal opinion, it makes several questionable claims, and at the end it goes into a rant against Windows NT regarding an issue that happened over a decade ago. Also I noticed that none of the criticism is specifically about Windows 7 with the criticism being either against Microsoft or proprietary software. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I tried to add a section called criticisms of windows 7 but it keeps being undone by Microsoft coprorate schills. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The original list of ""criticisms"" is a laughable laundry list of complaints. To paraphrase: 'It uses more of my HD than the previous version did!' 'It takes more resources than the previous version did!' 'It doesn't run on older hardware like the previous version did!' 'It doesn't let me use software from ten years ago like the previous version did!' 'It costs more than the previous version did!'

I really don't like being nonconstructive, but, seriously. These aren't technical criticisms these are complaints about the changes that MS made to better organize the UI, take advantage of expanding HD capacity and new hardware technologies, and improve the experience and usability on newer computers.

The MS pricing scheme is ridiculous, the number of "Editions" is staggering and unnecessary, and the DRM is intrusive and should be up to third party media providers to create(Or, preferably, not create) and should not be integrated into any OS anywhere. But, by no means, does that make your list anywhere near 'Criticisms of Windows 7' as much as it makes it 'Things that some people think are poop about Windows 7'

Complaint: an expression of discontent, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or grief.

Criticism: a work that sets out to evaluate or analyze. Turbolinux999 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2010 (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)

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)

I added a Criticism section and added hardware compatibility and performance sections with verifiable references. It was reverted within an hourWhytehorse1413 (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2010 (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)

Driver level, Vista and 7 typically use the same install, as the OS's are so simmilar underneath the hood. The driver problems Vista had were more due to the new architecture and driver developers needing time to adjust. Then again, remember when XP first came out? Nothing I had worked! After a few months, new drivers solved the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:39, 25 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)

Agree with above; Win 3.1->Win95 conversion projects were some of the hardest I've ever worked on personally. Heck, my workplace still has a legacy 3.1 machine, as a major piece of software was too dificult to port to 95... Seven in a lot of ways is Vista Lite. Microsoft fixed the most offending problems of Vista [Driver stability via WDDM, UAC, etc], but under the hood, the OS still operates the same, hence why most driver installs for Seven are a combined Vista/Seven installer. Using the "Major Release" argument, ME was a major release, and XP was NOT, because it was the same kernal verion of ME! --151.190.254.108 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 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)

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)

Please do not discuss this, as it's not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a forum.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 22 December 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)

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)

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)

Microsoft never forced anyone to use their software. If you have specific ideas on how to improve the article or a section, please provide your thoughts here, or better yet open up the article and edit away ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:46, 16 December 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)

New SSD Support Features

We need to add information on the new SSD support features. There are a number of articles covering this in pretty good detail.

• http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-solid-state-drives-ssd,7717.html
• http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2010/02/solid-state-drive-ssd-optimization-guide-for-windows-7-with-caution/
• http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?63273-*-Windows-7-Ultimate-Tweaks-amp-Utilities-*
• http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx

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)

windows 7 service pack 1

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

Hmm well, as far as I know, it hasn't been publicly released, only as a technet subscriber exclusive beta. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added information as to some of the notable (for general users) updates SP1 will provide in tables at the top of this article for anyone interested in a quick overview! :) 86.148.102.60 (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, it's been removed. Can't be bothered to put it in again folks, sorry! The View History tab shows user GB fan removed it as "this is not a forum to discuss windows 7 it is for discussing improvements to the article". Based on this reasoning can anyone explain how HALF this entire discussion page being devoted to people just querying why it is called Windows 7 has such relevance to the article? (I mean, yes, there was confusion raised in the IT media about it: but come on, enough to warrant HALF this page in discussion?) I can't see how that remains yet my highlights on Service Pack 1 is pulled. Ho-hum. Anyone who is interested can find Microsoft's official documents with the details here. 81.159.196.77 (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S., it may be worth noting that while it has been reported in the IT media that "Service Pack 1 will not, for Windows 7, include any new features, only bug-fixes" the documents do suggest it will install both the "Windows NT Backup Restore Utility" (KB974674) and the "Microsoft .NET Framework 4" (KB982671). Both are listed in the SP1 RC spreadsheet. Surely this is of some note? 81.159.196.77 (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A good gateway to getting (or refusing) SP1 is Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7, which has links to scads of documentation. In case there is no drive image to restore to pre-SP1, you may be able to uninstall Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1). There really ought to be an article on SP1, rather than a redirect to this skimpy section of the Win 7 article -- something for someone else to do, pretty clearly. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Service packs are not that notable. I feel the current description is sufficient.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor I expect to adapt installwindows7sp1 into the article. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Layout

I propose an easier to read article layout as follows:

1. Main paragraph, keep as-is
2. Hardware Requirements->Move physical memory limits here
3. Features->Move editions here
4. Criticisms
5. History-> Move service packs, removed features, development, Antitrust regulatory attention, and reception here. Also move Marketing to a subsection of reception.

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)

Why do yo feel the criticism needs a section of its own? The criticism is just a part of the reception of the operating system. There are both positive and negative reception and criticism is just negative reception. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel that this is the standard format that I've seen in wiki articles and throughout the web when talking about operating systems. If you want, you can call it Pros and Cons but "Features and Criticisms" is more polite so as not to offend anyone. I think that using "reception" instead of "criticisms/cons" is misleading and is generally a weasel word used by advertisers.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Many operating system articles do not have a criticism section and for example there isn't one for Linux, Ubuntu (operating system), Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Snow Leopard. As such I do not see why Windows 7 needs to have a section specifically for criticism when criticism can simply be added to the relevant section in the article. Also any criticism needs to be both reliably sourced and directly related to Windows 7. The criticism section that you added to the article had no sources, contained personal opinion, and the vast majority of the criticism was not directly related to Windows 7. Also as someone who upgraded a computer from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7 I can say for a fact that you don't have to wipe the hard disk drive so one of the statements was simply wrong.

I don't understand how you can upgrade from a 32 to 64 bit operating system unless you're running on a 64 bit processor and using some kind of processor workaround when on 32 bit so maybe the wipe has more to do with the file-system which, in your case, would be more modern because you're running a build for IA64 or AMD64 and so it has NTFS which can be upgraded directly but maybe people running fat32 can't? I was just adding the criticisms laid forth by other editors so if it's incorrect you can remove it.

As for the criticisms of other operating systems, you're welcome to add that if you like. I personally haven't been able to find much to criticize about Linux and maybe OSX deserves a section. On the other hand, I don't see 500 references in the Linux section which all point to payola reviews and the article doesn't read like an ad...Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The information in the criticism section you added lacks reliable sources which is the biggest problem. The information added to Wikipedia has to come from reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability provides information on that subject. In my opinion there are other issues as well in terms of factuality, neutrality, and personal opinion. Also there is not a consensus that the article needs a criticism section for Windows 7. There is already a reception section and in my opinion considering Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Ubuntu (operating system) put information from negative reviews in their reception section I do not see why the same can not be done with the Windows 7 article. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I got the price directly from Microsoft.com... I got the hardware requirements directly from this article... Do we really need a reference to know that win 7 has DRM? I think you're just making up false excuses to justify removing valid criticisms and prevent readers from obtaining knowledge.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a source other than Microsoft to say what price Windows 7 sells for, or the hardware requirements or that is has DRM. We do thought need a source from an independent reliable source to say that is a criticism of Windows 7. There is a huge difference between it has DRM and, because it has DRM, people have criticized the operating system. The first one, it has DRM, is just a neutral statement of fact. When you put that same statement in a criticism section it says that someone believes that having DRM is a bad thing. This needs a source because this is someones opinion and we need to know who's opinion it is. It is the same as the positive reviews that are in the reception section, if all we had was that someone said it was a "big improvement" over Windows Vista without any source we couldn't evaluate the statement. Both sides need reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You just undid an entire section with dozens of references because you're too lazy to go read about DRM. You're vandalizing the article. Please excuse yourself from further editing the article.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight before you accuse people of things. I removed the section yesterday because at the time it was completely unsourced to any source that actually said there criticisms. Then after you replaced it with some sources I added fact tags and other maintenance tags to specific statements that I did not believe were adequately sourced. Then you removed all of the tags that I placed as excessive without addressing a single one. I then came back and read every source and gave a detailed explanation below about my thoughts as to the sources. Then another editor removed/moved information and gave a detailed explanation below as to why. If you disagree with our actions you are free to ask for mediation or use other dispute resolution avenues. The other thing you could do is try to address the concerns we have raised below. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Currently I see no explanation given for why the NPOV tag was added and that is something that needs to be addressed soon since the NPOV tag is a temporary measure. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that this article lacks factual information about win 7 from a neutral point of view. I came here to read this article and learn about the OS, but instead I was mazed through a disinformation campaign, left knowing nothing and utterly frustrated after reading the article. Hence the request for a new article layout. It's NPOV because there is no critcism section and numerous people have pointed it out. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides the issue of adding a criticism section what specific parts of the article do you consider disinformation? --GrandDrake (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the article layout makes it difficult to find information. I feel that putting a giant section called development at the head puts a lot of people off when a simple "Windows 7 is written in C, C++, and assembly." is sufficient. Most of the information is historical in nature and needs to be in a history section. Why do we have a "goals" section? It's just more history. I like that there is a features section but I hate prose for it. It should be a small prose followed by a table with the different versions and their features. Antitrust regulatory attention is more history. The editions section should be merged into features as it is a natural fit. Reception should be changed to criticisms because reception means receiving and criticism means the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another. You could move all the stuff about how it was received to the history section. As the article sits, there is absolutely no criticism of win 7 and several wikipedians have pointed that out on this page. .Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the current structure layout does make sense. The development of Windows 7 was incredibly complicated which is why it has its own subarticle and I don't think it would make sense to reduce the development section to a single sentence. As for the matter of prose in the features section most of the features require an explanation and I don't really see how a chart could be used to replace the prose in that section. Note that there is a chart for the different editions which can be found in the Windows 7 editions article. Also a reception section can be used for both positive and negative reviews while a criticism section has a negative connotation for any statements put into that section. As for the allegation that "Microsoft corporate schills" are undoing your changes please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

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:

This edit:

Added a {{fact}} tag to the GUI interface comment. There was no reference that said anyone criticized 7 for these changes.

Added a {{who}} tag to the Made in India line. It says that critics said that it was a problem, the source in the entry only confirms that engineers in India helped design the software. The source does not explain who criticized that aspect.

Added a {{fact}} tag to the made in India entry. There is no source for the statements that criticized 7.

This edit added a fact tag to the Editions entry. There is no source that any reliable source has criticized Microsoft for having 6 editions.

This edit:

Added a {{fact}} tag to the Physical disk space entry. There is no source that anyone has criticized 7 for using to much disk space.

Added a {{fact}} tag to the Price entry. At the time there was only a reference from Microsoft that sourced hat 7 costs $219.99. There was no source that anyone has criticized Microsoft for the price. This has since been fixed by moving information out of the reception section.

This edit added a {{fact}} tag to the Hardware requirements entry. There is no source that anyone has criticized Microsoft for this.

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.

The reference on DRM does not discuss Windows 7 at all at least on the page that is linked.

The compatibility with older hardware entry is sourced to a Microsoft webpage. The webpage does not discuss anyone criticizing Microsoft for not making the new software backwards compatible with all hardware.

On the upgrade from XP entry, the first source does confirm that XP users will need to wipe their harddrive. It goes on to say that that is the preferable way to go anyway, that article does not criticize Microsoft or 7 for doing it that way. The second source is from Microsoft, and once again confirms you can't do an in-place upgrade from XP, no criticism. The third one also confirms the statement, but once again says it is the preferred method or upgrading you OS anyway, not a criticism.

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:

• Removed "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" and "Criticism of Microsoft" links due to NPOV.
• Removed statements concerning criticism section being from critics of Windows 7 since it may not be accurate depending on the source.
• In "Software" removed information that no sources supported and removed sources which either had nothing to do with the statements added or were from a blog or forum.
• Removed "Windows XP" section since none of the sources supported the statement that you have to wipe the hard disk drive to install Windows 7 on a Windows XP computer.
• Removed "Windows Vista" section since the sources were from a blog and forum.
• Removed "Compatibility With Older Hardware" section since the source made no criticism about this.
• Removed "Hardware Requirements" and "Editions" subsection since neither provided sources.
• Removed "DRM" section since the only source linked to a general website against DRM.
• Removed "Physical Disk Space" section since no source was given.
• Removed "Price" section since the source given was the Microsoft website which only listed the prices and moved the information on Windows 7 Vista Ultimate concerns back into the reception section.
• Removed "Performance" section since the statement on Windows 7 being only slightly faster than Windows Vista doesn't make sense as a criticism and both sources noted that Windows 7 was an improvement. Also of the other two sources one was a link to a YouTube video which would not be reliable source. The other source was from February of 2009 and was testing a beta version of Windows 7.
• Removed "Graphical User Interface Changes" section since no source was given.
• Removed "Made in India" section since the source given did not support the statements that were made.

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)

Information Suppression and Disinformation

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)

I am moving all the sections back into chronlogical order. I moved your comments to the bottom per the talk page guidelines. Editors will expect the oldest to be at the bottom not at the top. Rearranging the page to your desires outside of the talkpage guidelines could be considered disruptive. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View

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)

Once again you need to get your facts straight before accusing people of things. I have never removed NPOV or NPOV-Check tags from the article. You were warned about assuming good faith before also, none of my edits are with the intention of misleading readers. I explained above why I do not believe the criticism section belongs like you had it, as did GrandDrake. As I explained above reception is not positive or negative it is neutral. Creating a criticism section creates a non-neutral article. You really should start discussing this rather than accusing other editors of alterior motives and bad faith. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a different user who removed 3 of the 4 tags that you first added and I removed the fourth one since it was added as a minor edit and because there was no explanation for it on the talk page at that time. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states that "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page" and that "Tags should be added as a last resort". As for the issue of the criticism section the first time that you added a crticism section there were no sources for it and it contained many statements of personal opinion such as "Windows 7 is expensive". Later on you added back the criticism section to the article with sources but as I explained on the talk page there were problems with the vast majority of it. For example the source you added for "Windows 7 is expensive" was a Microsoft website that listed prices for Windows 7. That source did not support the price as being a criticism and it certainly wouldn't support the statement that "Windows 7 is expensive". The vast majority of the sources you added to support the criticism section either did not support the statements that were made or were taken from blogs and forums. Also though you point out that some users have asked for a criticism section in the past I would point out that other users in the past disagreed with that. Personally I see no reason why negative reviews for Windows 7 could not simply be added to the Reception section as is done with other operating system articles such as Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Ubuntu (operating system). --GrandDrake (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems fairly obvious to me that Whytehorse's reasons for wanting a criticism section are borne entirely out of a dislike of Windows or Microsoft, or a desire to get people to switch from it. It seems fair enough for any sourced and verifiable genuine criticism to appear in the "Reception" section, just as sourced and verifiable praise is - however, having a specific section deliberately created for the purposes of criticising the OS, linking to crappy sources like forums, does not constitute NPOV. 82.26.109.222 (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I second this. To me, it may be gaming the system. I have not seen any more contributions from Whytehorse1413 since August 2010, just to let you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows features?

Should there be a section on Windows features new in Windows 7, like Bitlocker?Willbennett2007 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section, Windows_7#New_and_changed_features that includes new and changed features in Windows 7. There is also a whole article Features new to Windows 7 on new features. That article includes a section on Bitlocker, Features_new_to_Windows_7#BitLocker_to_Go. If there is missing information you are freee to add to either or both articles as long as you add reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball violation

"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)

It is now sourced so it is not a crystal ball violation since we are not the ones saying it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

ARM Support

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)

CPU count

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)

Current stable build

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 request from Pologoalie8908, 3 February 2011

{{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)

Citation? It hasn't been officially released, and is only at RC status at the moment.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Grammar

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 request from Wangowiki, 23 February 2011

{{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: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. for the second.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{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)

Windows 7 E is was a European version of Windows without Internet Explorer which apparently was killed.[11] Perhaps we should explain that in the text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bushell89, 24 March 2011

{{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)

Actually, the article and source say the same thing: 32 cores (logical processors) are supported, but there is a maximum of 2 physical processors. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Service Pack 1 error

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)

Sales

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)

Physical CPUs are NOT the same as Physical Cores

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)

Actually, some people do have dual-processor PCs, for instance Maximum PC's 2010 PC of the year.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Andres3510, 28 April 2011

| succeeded by windows 8 Andres3510 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done - Windows 8 has not been released.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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 What should I do?

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)

Free Obamacare with Every Copy of Windows 7

The Obamamobile got stuck driving his car all over Europe. But Obama made a speech offering free Obamacare with every copy of Windows 7. Regulators in Europe who are recipients of Obamacare had this to say:

Serious concerns have been raised about the way some Obamacare treats European people - including one where patients are prescribed water to make sure they get a drink. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) said three hospitals had broken the law by failing to meet essential standards of care on dignity and nutrition, sort of like buying a copy of Windows. Inspectors expressed major concerns about nutrition.

"What the inspectors observed on the lack of protection of civilians from harm was not acceptable and it has been something we have taken very seriously indeed." She said the findings were an unpleasant surprise because service on the wards before they switched to Windows had been traditionally "very good". The trust would continue to carry out its own unannounced ward visits to monitor standards, she added. More CQC reports will be published over the summer with the findings of the programme of inspections released in the autumn.

The concerns raised in this report are truly shocking and we are clear that there is simply no excuse for failing to treat Europeans with the respect and dignity they deserve. "These are not difficult things to get right," she said. "The fact that staff are still failing to do so is a real concern." "We must never lose sight of the fact that the most important people in the country are the People, not President Barack Obama."

Brussels has unveiled plans for a wide-ranging overhaul of Europe’s intellectual property regime that would give companies additional rights, step up enforcement against Obamacare and aim to streamline copyright licensing.

Michel Barnier, EU internal market commission, said on Tuesday the aim was to balance the needs of rights holders, to encourage innovation and still allow consumers and users ready access to online services.

Lawyers for Microsoft were facing off against the European Commission on Tuesday in what looks likely to not be the final tussle resulting from the battle over Obamacare in Europe which have ensnared the software group for more than a decade.

The fine at issue is the €899m (US$1.2bn or Obamabucks1.5bn) which was levied on Microsoft by the European Commission for non-compliance with its original decision, several years earlier, that the software company had breached EU antitrust rules (for which the company was fined €497m) and abused a dominant market position in PC computer operating systems. The hardest working pork-barrel politics crony in Europe posted his first Obamabucks on the wall of a coffee shop when he issued his first product: a router running Windows 7. Unfortunately it crashed, canceling flights at airports across Europe.

The company became the first in the history of European Union competition policy to be fined for non-compliance with a Brussels antitrust decision – and the combined amount of the two fines remains the largest issued penalty.

Microsoft, however, has consistently argued that it was given insufficient guidance by the Commission to allow it to rectify the situation satisfactorily after the first fine, and avoid the second penalty.

Its lawyers told the Luxembourg-based General Court – part of the European Court of Justice – on Tuesday that if the Commission had been more explicit in its original decision, the problem would not have occurred.

Lawyers for the European Commission, however, defended the watchdog’s stance, while more than half a dozen other groups – including some of Microsoft’s biggest commercial rivals – also intervened in the case.

Although the fine at issue is relatively small, the case will be watched most closely because of its implications for future competition policy for human health, rather than the actual financial implications for Microsoft. Even some Microsoft customers agreed saying, "Obamacare does not belong in Europe."

Depending on what the court decides, it may shape the way in which Brussels has to approach certain antitrust, competition, entrepreneurs rights and health care decisions in the future.

Oral hearings at the Luxembourg courts are relatively short and most of the arguments are dealt with on paper. Victims of Obamacare appear to have no recourse other than biding their time on Wikipedia.

The court is unlikely to reach its decision for months, and could possibly take as a long as a year. In the meantime emergency umbrellas must be provided to victims of Obamacare even if that means European militaries bypass their criminal political leadership and partner with electronics makers to protect themselves and every civilian in Europe from Obamacare.

A further appeal to the European Court of Justice itself could be possible but only on outstanding points of law, of which Obamacare is in violation.