<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Why Microsoft Used the Name Windows 7? Explanation Inside</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/</link>
	<description>Technology News, Internet, Tips-n-Tricks, Tutorials, Software Reviews, Themes, Skins, Wallpapers</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:26:14 +0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PacMani</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-3/#comment-94450</link>
		<dc:creator>PacMani</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-94450</guid>
		<description>Too bad they actually changed the internal version to 6.1. Now this name is totally bs ;)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Too bad they actually changed the internal version to 6.1. Now this name is totally bs <img src='http://www.askvg.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: veggiedude</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-3/#comment-79836</link>
		<dc:creator>veggiedude</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-79836</guid>
		<description>Why Windows 7? I don&#039;t see why after Vista, they didn&#039;t just call this one &#039;Windows X&#039;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why Windows 7? I don't see why after Vista, they didn't just call this one 'Windows X'.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gibiR</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-3/#comment-79722</link>
		<dc:creator>gibiR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:13:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-79722</guid>
		<description>i read in some blogs that windows 7 is the major update for windows vista.? bit of curious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i read in some blogs that windows 7 is the major update for windows vista.? bit of curious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MAGNUMHEART</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-3/#comment-77574</link>
		<dc:creator>MAGNUMHEART</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77574</guid>
		<description>yeah it&#039;s the 7th release.

but why does winver displays version as 6.1? build 7600.

just asking. ^^</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yeah it's the 7th release.</p>
<p>but why does winver displays version as 6.1? build 7600.</p>
<p>just asking. ^^</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Manmohanjit</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-3/#comment-77416</link>
		<dc:creator>Manmohanjit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:02:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77416</guid>
		<description>You got it wrong at the 1.0, 2.0 and so on thing. Windows 7 is based on NT Kernel 6.1.

The version history of the various Windows families goes like this:

1. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (and Windows for Workgroups 3.11) from the early 1990s used the version numbers as part of their name. The first releases of Windows NT, also from that era, followed suit, with Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5.
2. Windows 95 was technically version 4.0. Windows NT 4.0, which was released exactly a year after Windows 95, adopted the Windows 95 interface. Windows 98 was version 4.10.1998 and Windows 98 Second Edition was 4.10.2222A. The much-maligned Windows Me was 4.90.3000. (History lessons here and here for those who care.)
3. Windows 2000 was the first release in the version 5 family. It was followed by Windows XP, which was version 5.1. Service packs are identified by build numbers, but service packs do not affect the version number.
4. Windows Vista was Windows 6.0 (Vista Service Pack 1 is build 6001). Because the next release of Windows is going to be based on the same kernel as Windows Vista, it should have the version number 6.1. Indeed, every copy of Windows 7 that has leaked to public view so far has had a build number of 6.1.xxxx. This numbering is almost certain to remain in the final product. If the major version number changed to 7.0, many applications written for Windows Vista would fail to install or run properly, simply because of version checking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You got it wrong at the 1.0, 2.0 and so on thing. Windows 7 is based on NT Kernel 6.1.</p>
<p>The version history of the various Windows families goes like this:</p>
<p>1. Windows 3.0 and 3.1 (and Windows for Workgroups 3.11) from the early 1990s used the version numbers as part of their name. The first releases of Windows NT, also from that era, followed suit, with Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5.<br />
2. Windows 95 was technically version 4.0. Windows NT 4.0, which was released exactly a year after Windows 95, adopted the Windows 95 interface. Windows 98 was version 4.10.1998 and Windows 98 Second Edition was 4.10.2222A. The much-maligned Windows Me was 4.90.3000. (History lessons here and here for those who care.)<br />
3. Windows 2000 was the first release in the version 5 family. It was followed by Windows XP, which was version 5.1. Service packs are identified by build numbers, but service packs do not affect the version number.<br />
4. Windows Vista was Windows 6.0 (Vista Service Pack 1 is build 6001). Because the next release of Windows is going to be based on the same kernel as Windows Vista, it should have the version number 6.1. Indeed, every copy of Windows 7 that has leaked to public view so far has had a build number of 6.1.xxxx. This numbering is almost certain to remain in the final product. If the major version number changed to 7.0, many applications written for Windows Vista would fail to install or run properly, simply because of version checking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-2/#comment-77178</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 01:05:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77178</guid>
		<description>If they called it Version 6.1, It would follow the pattern. The new pattern, I guess, will be Windows  7,8,9...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If they called it Version 6.1, It would follow the pattern. The new pattern, I guess, will be Windows  7,8,9...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FaRReR</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-2/#comment-77043</link>
		<dc:creator>FaRReR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:39:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77043</guid>
		<description>FYI Vishal Windows 7 is version 6.1: http://fav.me/d2b5u5z</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>FYI Vishal Windows 7 is version 6.1: <a href="http://fav.me/d2b5u5z" rel="nofollow">http://fav.me/d2b5u5z</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SCBright</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-2/#comment-77038</link>
		<dc:creator>SCBright</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:12:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77038</guid>
		<description>Somebody forgot the Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Somebody forgot the Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doc</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-2/#comment-77030</link>
		<dc:creator>Doc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 22:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77030</guid>
		<description>@S@nt@n@: NT 4.0 was the NT kernel, based on Windows NT 3.5 and OS/2; Windows 9x (95, 98, ME) used the &quot;home&quot; Windows 4.0 kernel. Not wrong, just different products. Windows ME was released around the same time as Windows 2000 (NT 5.0 kernel), and both were replaced by XP (5.1 kernel): ME by XP Home, 2000 by XP Pro...end of the line for the 4.0/9x kernel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@S@nt@n@: NT 4.0 was the NT kernel, based on Windows NT 3.5 and OS/2; Windows 9x (95, 98, ME) used the "home" Windows 4.0 kernel. Not wrong, just different products. Windows ME was released around the same time as Windows 2000 (NT 5.0 kernel), and both were replaced by XP (5.1 kernel): ME by XP Home, 2000 by XP Pro...end of the line for the 4.0/9x kernel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RameshK</title>
		<link>http://www.askvg.com/why-microsoft-used-the-name-windows-7-explanation-inside/comment-page-2/#comment-77017</link>
		<dc:creator>RameshK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:25:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.askvg.com/?p=2600#comment-77017</guid>
		<description>Windows 7 Version is 6.1</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Windows 7 Version is 6.1</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
