Numbering this version of Windows as "7" has confused many users, so on October 14, 2008, Nash clarified his earlier remarks, saying:<ref name="Protalinski">{{cite web|url = http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/2008/10/15/final-release-of-windows-7-to-have-kernel-version-6-1|title = Final release of Windows 7 to have kernel version 6.1|accessdate = 2008-11-24|last = Protalinski |first = Emil|authorlink = |year = 2008|month = October}}</ref><ref name="Nash14Oct08">{{cite web|url = http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx|title = Windows Vista Team Blog - Why 7?|accessdate = 2008-11-24|last = Nash|first = Mike.|authorlink = |year = 2008|month = October}}</ref>
{{blockquote|The very first release of Windows was Windows 199.0, 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 4.10.1998, 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...There's been some fodder about whether using 6.1 in the code is an indicator of the relevance of Windows 7. It is not. Windows 7 is a significant and evolutionary advancement of the client operating system. It is in every way a major effort in design, engineering and innovation. The only thing to read into the code versioning is that we are absolutely committed to making sure application compatibility is optimized for our customers.<ref name="Nash14Oct08" /> }}
