What’s in a name?

Most of you must know by now, that Windows 7 is going to be called Windows 7 finally. We at Redmond Pie are happy with the name. Seriously, what’s wrong with it? It’s the next version after Vista SP 1, which is version 6.1. Makes sense to me. But apparently, there are many crap blogs, who have nothing else to do but churn out 20 posts a day, along with some anti-Microsoft propoganda.

Let’s start analyzing some of these one by one. Mike Arrington’s TechCrunch, who I honestly have no respect for, due to his ill informed articles and exaggerations, had a post titled, “Microsoft’s Next Version Of Windows To Be Called Windows 7. Seriously” Seriously, this coming from some stupid bloggers who think Google Chrome a is Windows Killer. Wake up and smell the coffee, Mike. Or wait, better yet, grow up. Jason Kincaid writes:

Windows has had one of the most ridiculous naming schemes in the history of software. First there were logical (but ugly) version numbers, like the once commonplace “Windows 3.1″. Then with the release of the overhauled Windows 95 the company adopted a naming system based on the year of release, which it continued until Windows 98.

If this guy finds 3.1 ugly, he should take a look at OS X 1.4.5 or 1.5.5. At least 3.1 is shorter and to the point. Most normal users are able to understand that 3.1 is the first increment after version 3. But OS X is at version 10 isn’t it? Where’s version 1? My memory goes back as far as System 6. And System 6 wasn’t OS X, so technically, Mac OS started from version 7.6. Could this get anymore confusing?? I hope Jason Kincaid has an answer to this. The Windows naming scheme is far simpler then Apple’s or any other OS I know. How about this as well, if you can’t find any name for your next OS after Leopard? Name it Snow Leopard! What next, Indian Leopard?

Now let’s have a look at another one by VentureBeat’s MG Siegler. Now, I like what this guy writes. He’s tried to take apart the Windows Vista Blog post by Mike Nash, which I admit isn’t the easiest to understand, but isn’t that hard either if you have your information right.

Remember that statement I reprinted above that read, “the numbering we used is quite simple.”? Was it really meant to describe this statement: “So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 – which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.”?

Maybe it’s a bit harsh to say, but is this really the same company that wonders why it has a public perception problem?

The right approach here would have been for Microsoft to say, “Windows 7 is the seventh version of Windows because we say so.”

Let me try to explain. Windows Vista is version 6.0 and was updated to kernel 6.1 with the release of Service Pack 1 along with the release of Windows Server 2008. Even though the kernel is now at version 6.1, that didn’t change Windows Vista itself to version 6.1. Microsoft has said that it wont introduce any compatibility issues with Windows 7, so the same kernel would probably be used. But the Windows would be the next version after Vista, version 6.0, therefore it’s called Windows 7. How hard is that to understand? After Windows Vista, 6.0, naturally, comes 7!

If you dig around, you’ll find more such blog posts around the blogosphere, which is just extremely ridiculous. The anti-Microsoft propoganda machines are at work!

Would you want to believe blogs who just cover silly new Internet websites, most of which make no sense? Those websites that were scared of how the present economically bad times could mean doom for the start ups they cover? Trust me, most of those start ups are nothing but hot air balloons, like Cuil was. And if they can predict the fall of Microsoft and Windows by just mere browsers, then I believe Apple would shut down after the death of Steve Jobs, and in a decade 95% of the start ups these websites cover, would shut down as well. If they have no respect for the company that introduced us to home computing and the most used operating system in the world, I really don’t give a damn about the shitty start ups they cover. The economic issues could hurt start ups, but I haven’t heard of it disturbing Microsoft or Windows so far, unlike the extremely volatile stocks of Apple, the favorite company of these blogs.

P.S. TechCrunch is the last blog on Earth I’ll take seriously now.