Windows Vista...perhaps no more!

[abudhu]

http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/2140286/cloud-microsoft-vista

Microsoft May have to change the name of Windows Vista. Can I get a "S-C-O-R-E"

[jharriso]

No way, they've put too much on the line reputation wise to change the name. They'll buy the name somehow.

[powellm]

Buy the name? They'll buy the company. If you can't beat 'em, acquire 'em.

[lnp]

No way, they've put too much on the line reputation wise to change the name. They'll buy the name somehow.

More than Longhorn? I remember hearing that one for a while.

[jonathaw]

Longhorn = super secret code name for development
Vista = equally arbitrary word for the official release

[jharriso]

Ja, just like Windows XP was Whistler..
Big list here
http://www.bitzenbytes.com/Content-Arcanum-18-1-61.html/

[dparm]

The Honda Fit takes the cake...it's a swear word in Swedish. They changed it to the Jazz. I've heard that Vista means "pay with money" in Brazilian Portugese.

Can we just drop the whole "Windows" name? Can we please get something marginally more creative? Why can't they just call it "Microsoft Vista"? Microsoft needs to get more creative...

Better yet, why not just "Microsoft OS"?

[abudhu]

...Apple OS X <-- Same Problem. Lets change the name for apple too.

Naming schemes people naming schemes! Lets get some new ones.

[amichel]

...Apple OS X?

Try MacOS X, X meaning 10, 10 being the revision of MacOS that we're on, as opposed to 9, or 8.

At least the MacOS system follows a sensible numbering scheme.

Windows 3, 3.1, 3.11, for workgroups, 95, NT, 98, 2000, XP, XP-SP2, Vista

Back at Windows 3, it made...sorta sense, up until the "for workgroups" bit. Then it got stupid. 95 didn't even come out in 95, likewise with 98 and 2000. NT came before 95, but after "for workgroups" even though it was the network version of windows, and though it was called "Windows" it shared NOTHING with the codebase of Windows 95 except the look and feel of the UI. And Windows NT was actually Windows NT 4, though they never really talked about that. 2000 is actually NT 5, but it follows the consumer-side naming convention of using the year as a name, and then XP is actually NT5 ALSO but with some DirectX polish and a coat of paint, so the name relates to nothing whatsoever in reality. Vista replacing Windows as the product name would be sensible, but they have to keep the brand name recognition high, and that means it has to be called Microsoft Windows SomethingStupid.

So, Windows version naming, stupid. Mac version naming, standard software convention, Product Name MajorVersion.MinorVersion.PatchVersion (ie MacOS 10.4.2).

I'm fine with Mac's naming scheme. It tells me everything I needed to know version wise from one string. 10 = X is newer than 9. 10.4 is newer than 10.3. 10.4.2 is newer than 10.4.1.

How much easier and intuitive can you get?

[jmcgon]

You left out Windows ME!! OMG that OS was quality ;)

[abudhu]

Edit: Deleted by Me =D

[amichel]

Well, I'll save the religious invocations Amit, but suffice it to say, you certainly don't weigh in lightly for the PC side, so I think you could cut me some slack. I'm also not entirely sure the "Nazi" crack is applicable, since I'm not really trying to take over Europe with Macs, but I do have my opinion, much as you have yours. Hopefully you don't qualify opinionated disagreement as fascism, but it was your call. I'm mostly a vocal Apple supporter on this board because it yanks your chain, and I like to argue, plus I don't find there to be a sufficiently rowdy bunch of zealous Mac users to match the PC users on the board. In order to bring balance to the forums, I choose to not let you hack away on Apple without a fight. You like your PC and that's your business, I'm not trying to get you to switch. I don't care what you use. But if you're going to voice strong opinions, and you do, you can't expect anyone, let alone me, to let the gauntlet lie. As for the free Roman numeral lesson, don't mention it. If you need any more help, let me know. I'm around.

I actually don't like CS. CS is a bad name for a software version. It's silly. CS stands for "Creative Suite". So it's Photoshop Creative Suite? Where's the rest of the Photoshop Suite? And there must also be a bundle of software representing the Illustrator Creative Suite. That's silly. The moniker Creative Suite was obviously meant to indicate the move toward integration between the varying products of the Adobe lineup, which is fine. But a suite isn't one piece of software. A suite is a pack of software. The pack should be called Creative Suite, or Creative Suite 2, but contain Photoshop 8 and 9, respectively. It actually says "Version: 9.0" in the about box for Photoshop CS2. Why not just call it Photoshop 9, much like they had 1-7? That makes fine sense to me. But it isn't that way. Such are things, Amit, such are things.

What I was getting at was that in the world of arbitrary and meaningless software branding, Apple's naming convention is a sensible one, even if it isn't trying very hard to be clever. At least from the naming scheme I know what's going on. Not so with Microsoft, Amit. Or Adobe, since you brought them up. Apple's version scheme wasn't trying to be overly creative, which you criticized it for, it was trying to be descriptive, whether it appeals to you personally or not. I was saying I preferred it, and I do. I wish other companies would make it so easy. I'm sorry it bothered you so much that I picked on Microsoft's string of inane version names, but it's a silly non-pattern they've got going, and I don't much care for it. I'd prefer it greatly if they'd focus more energy on making software that was actually better, and less on marketing goons trying to make it seem revolutionary by choosing an airy, panel-tested, cotton-candy brand name for their oft-delayed and increasingly non-innovative next OS release.

Also, thanks for the lesson in vociferation. I'll be sure to smatter all my posts with the names of my opposition from now on. Apparently it lends credibility, or something. Amit.

[fischerm]

Hey be nice you two. Don't make me delete your posts... :) We can have a civilized discussion without resorting to borderline personal attacks.

I happen to like the boring but understandable versioning. Macromedia seems to be returning to this by ditching the MX 2004 crap for a simple 8 in their next release.

[jharriso]

I find the idea of taking over Europe with an army of macs quite amusing actually. G5's paratrooping into Crete, annexing Austria, splitting Poland with Russia... iPod commando units taking out English costal defenses...

http://www.decalgirl.com/prodimg/ipm/ipm-ucamo-300.jpg

Didn't slackware jump a couple of versions all in one go?

I'd like to see a regulated numbering scheme like Mac has, but I'm totally cool for using alternate names for it as well. Frankly, I like the code names that the companies usually come up with. I mean, OS X Tiger... That's cool. If they did the same with Longhorn, it would be.. like.. Windows 7 Longhorn. Hell, CPU manufacturers don't come up with random name changes for their cores. If you've got an AMD with a Barton core, it's an AMD with a Barton, not an AMD with a magical-and-whimsical name attached to it. There's Prescott, Palamino, Venice... I realize that I'm rambling now.

Maybe Microsoft can buy the rights to use starwars names.. Windu's Vista or somesuch.

[amichel]

Slack did have a jump in version number (http://www.slackware.com/faq/do_faq.php?faq=general#0) a while ago. It was before my time though. I've used Slack since 7 or 8, and it's been good since then. :)

I'm also a big fan of the codenames. Most companies are embracing the codename thing of late, so it's been entertaining. One point of order though, CPU manufacturers DO come up with random names for their cores. Just running down the history of Athlon cores:

Original Athlon:
There was the K7 (Athlon "Classic") and Thunderbird (T-bird)
Athlon XP:
Palomino, Thoroughbred (T-Bred), Barton and Thorton
Athlon 64:
SledgeHammer, ClawHammer, Newcastle, Winchester, Venice, San Diego, Manchester, Toledo, Odessa, Oakville and Newark

Though the 64 codenames do follow a theme, it's still pretty arbitrary, and you certainly can't tell which of those is the most current, what you'd find/use it in, etc.

Intel isn't any better with their Northwood, Prescott, Dothan, Yonah....stuff. It sorta bugs me that they don't differentiate between cores more. I mean, there are serious differences between cores, and it'd be nice if I could tell something useful from an easily rememberable name. But, hey. Another one of those things.

[dparm]

Well the way I look at it there's two roads to take: sequential numbering, or arbitrary names. Sequential numbering is easy and doesn't confuse, but it's rather boring and uncreative. Arbitrary naming can get confusing since there's no logical order, but at least it's more interesting than boring numbers.

And obviously all the Mac OS's had their codenames, i.e. Copland, Sonata, Rhapsody, etc.

Whatever, a name's just a name. Concentrate on product quality.