Talk:History of Microsoft Windows

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Top-importance).

Windows Line or Windows Family?[edit]



Windows family.svg

Anyone?Eshcorp 20:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

first one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I found this good post on Slashdot, to wit:

Windows 1 - 3 (though the picture here was sort of confused in the first place, but never mind)

  • Windows 95 (4)
  • Windows 98 (4.1)
  • Windows ME (4.2)

The above three being sort of concurrent with:

  • Windows NT 3.5
  • Windows NT 4.0
  • Windows 2000 (NT 5)

Then the line was unified as:

  • Windows XP (5.1)

So Windows Vista is 6 and now we are talking about Windows 7.

--AdjustablePliers (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 10:58, 22 January 2008 MST

Windows Server Longhorn?[edit]

It appears that no one noticed that windows vista was originally called lonhorn back in '05.

Longhorn was the project codename, not the intended release name; see the article on Windows Vista. What surprises me is that there's no mention whatsoever of Windows Server .NET, released around the same time as Windows XP and yanked from the market almost as soon as it came out. It was fixed and rebranded as Server 2003. Thatfield977 (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure "Windows Server .NET" is not just another rumor or made-up names? Fleet Command (talk) 09:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

VMS heritage[edit]

The article says, "DEC also believed he (Dave Cutler) brought Mica's code to Microsoft and sued. Microsoft eventually paid $150 million US and agreed to support DEC's Alpha CPU chip in NT." I haven't changed the main article yet, but if there are no objections, I'd like to replace "Mica's code" with "VMS's kernel architecture" or something similar. -- jdcope, 24-Jan-2005

First popular version?[edit]

The article says:

The first really popular version of Windows was version 3.0, released in 1990. This benefited from the improved graphics available on PC's by this time, and also from the 80386 processor which allowed 'true' ''multitasking'' of the Windows applications

I'm pretty sure this is wrong (although not quite sure enough to make the change myself). Windows 3.0 had a real mode (for any PC) and a standard mode (for 286 or higher). It had no special provision for the 386. Windows 3.1 dumped real mode and added 386-enhanced mode. One of the things that made Windows 3.0 so popular was that it allowed extended memory to be put to good use (assuming you had at least a 286). --Zundark

Before Windows 3.0, there was a separate "Windows 386" version of 2.0, but 3.0 did indeed fold that code into the main product, which used a 386 if you had one; otherwise it used the 286; it fell back to "real mode" only as a last resort, or when specifically invoked that way (which people did to run it as a task under DesqView or something). 3.1 dumped real mode as you say, and added some extra 386-specific code.

The only thing I might change here is that the phrase "true" multitasking is misleading. Most Windows applications at the time were still 16-bit applications, which still used the cooperative multitasking of earlier Windows versions rather than the full pre-emptive multitasking available to 32-bit apps. --LDC

The article implies that most of the code was written by microsoft. Is this a true statement? I thought most of the underlying code was ripped from BSD and other 'free to be copied' Unix variants. -- mike dill

Urban legend, I'm afraid. Lots of people would like to believe Microsoft is stealing people's code, but they aren't. Some code wasn't MS original, but they licensed it legally from the appropiate corporations. Also, 'free to be copied' is a vague term... The BSD license requires credit to be given in freely available source code. Windows doesn't provide source code, thus the BSD license can't be used to borrow code. --Colin dellow
Not true -- BSD license only ever required acknowledgment in documentation; there was no requirement to provide source code. And the University of California has since revoked the acknowledgement requirement (along with several others who used the same license for their own code), so anyone can use BSD in their propepriatry software without any acknowledgment. Microsoft could legally put BSD code in their own software, and they don't legally even need to tell anyone. But nonetheless I doubt they actually have, to any significant extent. -- Simon J Kissane

Microsoft definitely has used plenty of BSD code in Windows, particularly in the networking stuff. This came up recently in 2001, I think it was on Slashdot. With credit, though. You can find the copyright strings for University of California in a number of EXEs and DLLs. --Alan Millar

Absolutely. For example, I believe the Windows command-line FTP client is pretty much a direct port of the BSD code.
'Plenty of code' is a rather gross exaggeration. A scan of the Windows directory on XP finds exactly five binaries containing BSD copyright strings (and, by inference, BSD code), namely finger.exe, ftp.exe, nslookup.exe, rcp.exe and rsh.exe. The grand total is 165 KiB, out of hundreds of MiB (i.e. less than 0.02%). On Vista, the number of binaries containing BSD-licensed strings falls to three: finger.exe, ftp.exe and nslookup.exe, for a total of 135 KiB on a multi-GiB system (i.e. less than 0.01%).
For Windows NT 3.1, semi-reliable sources (e.g. individuals involved) have claimed Microsoft licensed a TCP/IP stack from a small Scottish company called Spider, who had used BSD TCP/IP code in developing it. However, they've also claimed this stack was a stop-gap since there hadn't been time to write one for NT 3.1, and was not used in any subsequent releases of NT (non-NT Windows 3.1 didn't include a TCP/IP stack at all, and users had to download third-party stacks, most of which were probably BSD-derived). The fact that NT 3.5 introduced a completely new TCP/IP stack (written 'from the ground up') is officially documented by Microsoft. The absence of BSD copyright strings in the TCP/IP drivers tends to confirm there's no BSD code in there (at least on XP and Vista -- I haven't access to Windows 2000 or earlier versions of NT).
It's time to lay to rest the myth that Windows contains any significant amount of BSD code. The tiny number of obscure and aged TCP/IP command-line tools are completely insignificant. I'd surmise at least 95% of Windows users have never even used any of them, don't know what they are and wouldn't notice or care in the least if they were removed. The only people likely to care are those of us who are familiar with BSD command-line tools, owing to Unix/Linux backgrounds. -- Shalineth 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned 3.1 as an upgrade from 3.0 that added multimedia/cdrom support. A stopgap extension was available for 3.0 to provide that functionality before 3.1 was released, but I don't know if thats important enough to mention. I might have insinuated the upgrade was about only multimedia... --alan D

No mention of the non-reentrantcy of dos as a major limiting factor affecting windows 1 through windows me perforance.

The whole tone of this article is strange for an encyclopedia. I'm all for M$-bashing, but in its place.

I concur. What in hell does "ME is very unstabe and the Microsoft Corproation apologises to anyone who bought the proguct" mean?

Article read:

In late 2001 Window XP was released in two versions Windows Xp profesional (built on Nt engine) and Windows Xp Home eddition (built on Windows 9x engine)

Windows XP pro has been proved to be the most stable operating system of all time. (excludin linux) Microsoft has proven to been very effective at marketing its products. One of the results has been that Microsoft has changed product names to induce consumers to think that the technology has changed more than it really has. As of the year 2001, all of Microsoft's operating systems have come out of the same two

lines of technology: MS-DOS and OS/2.

Not only is this badly written and shows anti-Microsoft bias, it also is factually incorrect -- both editions of Windows XP are built on a Windows NT core. There may be some code from Windows 9x in there as well, but the base OS is all NT. -- SJK

The OS/2 product line shows versions 1.0 and 2.0, but doesn't mention versions 3.0 and 4.0. Should those be mentioned here, or are they irrelevant to the article since they came out after IBM and Microsoft stopped working together? Thought it might be worth mentioning that OS/2 3.0 came out in 1994 in an attempt preempt the release of Windows95; I think that 94-95 period was probably its heyday, or as much of a heyday as it ever had. --Wesley

2002-04-27: In response to the above, I have a added a few lines about OS/2 version 3.0 and some of the possible reasons that are commonly put up why it failed. Hopefully it is not considered too biased... I also tried to clean up much of the duplication between this page and the OS/2 page and added a more obvious link from that page to here. -- djmutex

It seems odd to me that such a lengthy article on this topic includes no mention of the term "monopoly". Are the business/societal ramifications of Windows' history so insignificant compared with the specifics of technical development and (marketing-driven) naming/feature progression?

There's a massive difference between a corporate entity (Microsoft) and a product (Windows). Monopoly has absolutely nothing to do with the product. If you're implying that, because Windows is purportedly the most-used OS in the world, Windows is the product of a monopoly, you are mistaken. It's called winning the competitive market. The Microsoft article briefly mentions the company's aggressive 3E (embrace, extend, extinguish) policy toward eliminating the competition. Again, this doesn't imply a monopoly; it demonstrates aggressive, at worst ethically questionable but nonetheless legal competitive tactics. The List of Microsoft topics article Analysis section points to some excellent run-downs of criticism and litigation raised against Microsoft. Ironically, most of it has nothing to do with Windows (although a great deal of it revolves around Windows applications, not the OS itself). Thatfield977

We need some WinCE history here. --k.lee

There's a Windows CE article. Given that CE is an offshoot of Windows rather than an evolution, using an entirely different code-base, perhaps a link would suffice. Thatfield977

This is a fine article. We could add Microsoft Windows Server 2003 to stay current. BF 14:44 May 10, 2003 (UTC)

I'd like screenshots of Windows 2.0 and 3.0, if it's possible to include them under our copyright policy.

brief discussion of OSR2?[edit]

article completely ignores OSR2, which did have a few significant enhancements versus 95 (FAT32, USB, mostly 32-bit code in the file system, DMA support on IDE, ...)

from the "core OS" perspective, OSR2 had basically everything 98 had less the new Explorer.

I would call this the bowdlerized version of the history of Windows. Where is the part where Microsoft used the Win95 launch and a minor payment dispute to force IBM to drastically curtail their support for OS/2, Smart Suite, Lotus, etc. Here is a clear clue in this URL:

Microsoft was determined to kill anything that competed with Win95 and Office, and they were not above using monopoly power to do it.

Included Several Enhancements[edit]

I've just added several new areas, and just generally tidied up the listing. I believe it's accurate, but as always, feel free to point out inaccuracies.

I'll have a look at including Windows CE, and Other Windows XP versions, such as Tablet PC, and Media Center Edition


"I want Mac on a PC, I want Mac on a PC" and the statement that they created Windows only because of the Mac is quite a pro-Mac POV, and I don't think this is accurate. There were other GUIs around at the time, like GEM. Though Microsoft was definitely influenced by the Mac (who in turn were influenced by Palo Alto), I don't think this is the first story here, and not NPOV. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was pointed out on IRC that it came from - Ta bu shi da yu 05:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Release date of 3.1[edit]

When was 3.1 released? 3.11? Mr. Jones 10:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to wikipedia itself, 1992 and 1993 (NT) --Kuzetsa (talk) 18:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

How many?[edit]

Do we know how many copies of the various Windows systems were shipped? Rich Farmbrough 20:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Links I found when researching Windows 2000[edit]

Here are some useful links I found, you might want to consider them for this article:

Anyway, hope this helps a bit. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Where is Windows 95?[edit]

I could be missing something here, but I find it extremely odd that there is no subsection dealing with Windows 95 which is arguably the most important release of Windows that Microsoft was put out to date. Suggest that someone familiar with the topic add a section for Windows 95 before "Windows NT 4.0" and add some background/history related to the OS and it's release.

Windows 95/98 and 1GB RAM[edit]

The statement that these OSs won't run on more than 512 megs without "obscure registry tweaks" is incorrect, and seems to be a continuation of a series of myths that they couldn't handle more than various amounts of memory, that first seem to have cropped up referring to "more than 64MB" when that was considered a lot of RAM. My current system is still running 98SE on 1 gig. A small change is beneficial to the vcache section of system.ini, nothing else is required.

  • There were several popular motherboard chipsets that failed with the way Windows 95 handled memory. It was clearly a failure with those chipsets, but was the source of the "Windows 95 doesn't handle more than 64mb of memory." There were large memory bugs that were problems with Windows, but those were at huge (for the time) amounts of memory. SchmuckyTheCat 08:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

USB Support in Windows 98?[edit]

Does anybody think it may be worth adding a comment on USB Support for Windows 98?

USB Support, despite being used as a marketing buzzword in the OSR2 releases of Windows 95, was a bit sketchy and unreliable, and often required further adjustments and tweaks. Windows 98, however, supported USB 'out of the box', and I think this is one of the features that made it such an appealling upgrade.


MarkLeeUK 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Sketchy USB support in Detroit was a reason why it was OEM only. USB support was touted as a big deal in Windows 98 to both consumers and developers. Consumers so they could use devices, and developers because USB was one of the first native WDM drivers - one binary for both Win98 and the forthcoming Windows 2000. So sure, add it where appropriate.SchmuckyTheCat 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help there Schmucky. I've added a very brief line to the Windows 98 description regarding USB support.

MarkLeeUK 03:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 3.5 and Windows 2000 AS[edit]

The version of Windows NT 3.5 also exists, in addition to 4.0 and 3.1.

Windows 2000 Advanced Server (not sure about just the plain Server version) also includes a "Manage Your Server" page; this is not "new" to Windows Server 2003.

Jdstroy 06:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Windows NT 3.51 is mentioned in the article, though not as extensively as is deserved. The "Manage Your Server" role-based tool is a new feature in Windows Server 2003. There was a "Configure Your Server" wizard which did some of the same stuff, but as the name suggests, was more for initial configuration and not so much ongoing management. Warrens 06:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

External link to "Brief History"[edit]

I only fixed the spelling mistake in the link ("breif" ==> "brief") but the article that the link points to is rife with opinion ("reign of terror") and misleading or inaccuarate statements ("Removing a floppy from your drive would crash the computer") but it's an external article, so not the purview of Wikipedia authors.

But the link to it is, and maybe the link should be removed? The content in the page linked to is not unique in any way from the content of other linked pages, or of this article for that matter. So it seems as though nothing is lost by removing the link.

Brianporter 18:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Lisa or Macintosh?[edit]

In the movie Pirates of the silicon valley, it shows Bill telling his team that he wants a GUI. When he is telling them that, he is currently using a Lisa.

If i remember correctly, Lisa was a codename Macintosh was using at the time, if that's what your asking. --Nsbendel 19:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought Lisa was a different computer released by Apple altogether, and they dumped it after Lisa 2?

Windows "Fiji"[edit]

Is anybody writing anything to address "Fiji"? Although it is questioned whether or not it is an update to Vista or a standalone OS to preceed Vienna, it should be addressed. Just wanted to give somebody a chance to reply if they are already working on it. --Nsbendel 19:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Windows 98 Crash paragraph[edit]

Added 00:52, 16 October 2006 by →Windows 98

When Bill Gates and his assistant demonstrated Windows 98's USB capability by pluggin in a USB Scanner, the computer crashed, showing the Blue Screen of Death.

While I am not disputing that this happened, a source is not cited and the statement does not flow with the structure of the section. It seems out of place and should be integrated into the existing text with the proper source cited.

  • I remember this incident, and used to have a film clip. Some diligent searching ought to find a source. A-ha, here we go, Chicago Comdex keynote address, 1998.[1][2] ... Still, as it happened to one person, once, in a public venue, doesn't make it notable for this kind of article, does it? I don't think so. YMMV. David Spalding Talk/Contribs 17:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

NT = New Technology?[edit]

I saw somewhere that NT stands for New Technology? (I think it was on the NT startup screen) Anyone know if this is true?

[3] SchmuckyTheCat 22:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
   Some say it's New Technology, I've heard it's Network Technology, but I'm not entirely sure.
   Blasterman 95 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Blasterman 95

Windows for Workgroups 3.0?[edit]

I saw something on the History ow MS windows, and it mentioned that the Multi-User windows started with a WfW version 3.00. Could someone confirm this? If it can be confirmed, maybe we should add it to the article, and update the picture.

Blasterman 95 23:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)Blasterman_95

XP MCE root[edit]

This graphic suggests that Windows XP MCE is derrived from Windows XP Home Edition. However, I believe that I have read on the MS website that XP MCE is built off of the Windows XP Pro code base. For example, whereas on XP home you cannot use gpedit or most other MMC snapins, in XP MCE, like XP pro, you can. There are other "bits and pieces", so to speak, of XP Pro on an XP MCE computer, such as the Tour Windows XP, which thinks the computer is running XP pro. If the person who posted the graphic could explain their reasoning, and update the chart, if necessary, to reflct that XP MCE is derived from Windows XP pro and Windows XP home I would appreciate it. --Tech Nerd 04:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It is based on Pro, when you have Windows display it's version number it says Windows Xp Professional Build blah blah blah... MAybe it should be switched to that line one instead.
It's also misleading to present XP home as a derivative of both Windows 2000 and Windows Me. XP Home and XP Pro use the same codebase, derived from the NT line, with the only difference being that a number of features included with Pro are disabled in Home. Unless I'm mistaken, MCE uses the same codebase too, and just adds additional media features on top of the ones included in Pro. --Shalineth 14:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Good point. The question now is, what is this graphic trying to depict? If it is trying to show the history in terms of code-base, or in terms of who the product is marketed for? Because Windows XP Home and MCE are both consumer products; XP Pro and previous versions of NT are corporate products. However, all versions of XP were based on the Windows 2000 code-base, so really, the windows line should end, and all versions of XP should branch off from windows 2000 as part of the NT line. That's my opinion. --Tech Nerd 04:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That graphic doesn't make sense at all. SchmuckyTheCat 00:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources[edit]

The lack of citations in this article is appalling. From an academic perspective, it has no value, even if some of the claims happen to be right. -- Shalineth 06:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I've read comments, I believe by Gordon Letwin (the architect of OS/2 on the Microsoft side), suggesting that the Microsoft/IBM partnership over OS/2 fell apart because Microsoft wanted to include a 32-bit Windows subsystem in the then 'NT OS/2' (along with POSIX, OS/2 and MS-DOS/16-bit-Windows). IBM were apparently adamant that there be no 32-bit Windows subsystem, even if OS/2 remained the primary subsystem, and issued an ultimatum that Microsoft either abandon all efforts to create a 32-bit Windows API, or IBM would withdraw from the partnership (with the latter coming to pass).

If I can find the source, I may add something about this. -- Shalineth 06:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


I don't think we should use both 16/32-bit and 32/64-bit to mean very two different things on the timeline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Josh the Nerd (talkcontribs) 14:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Origin of the name[edit]

Does anybody have any information on the origin of the name Windows? Were any other names considered (apart from Interface Manager)? Obviously Windows is a reference to "windows" on the screen, but I've always suspected it's also a pun on Gates. Rwxrwxrwx 21:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft loves simple names, I assume they think it helps them market products or makes their products easier to use on a desktop. Look at what you get with a fresh install of Windows: Windows Media Player. Windows Movie Maker. Internet Explorer. Word. That, or Microsoft has a total lack of creativity. But what are the chances of that? --Laugh! 21:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Better distinction between the 9x and the NT lines[edit]


I think the article should emphasize a little better the distinction between the NT line and the 9x line, and the fact that they were developed simultaneously. This difference becomes obvious when looking at the graphical timeline at the end of the article, but not while reading the article. Maybe should this timeline appear near the beginning of the article? Maybe the beginning of each section (i.e. Windows 95, Windows 2000 etc...) should make clear which kernel family is used for this given relevant version of Windows? --CutterX 02:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

"Judge William Schwarzer dropped all but 9 of the 189 charges that Apple had sued Microsoft with on January 5, 1989." History of Microsoft Windows

"On January 5, 1989, Schwarzer dropped all but 10 of the 189 claims that Apple brought against Microsoft." William Schwarzer

9 or 10, which one is correct? Could anyone provide a reference, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What's the timeline supposed to show?[edit]

What's the timeline graphic supposed to show? Because NT shares a separate path and it contains a marker for the point after which "UI shared code", it seems to be showing the lineage of the source code. However, it shows Windows Me and Windows 2000 "joining" to form Windows XP, which is certainly not the case. Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Does Xenix belong in the history section? If MS-DOS and OS/2 are included, I see no reason not at least mention it, as it represents a path not taken. ERobson (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I think that Windows CE and Windows Mobile has to be included too... They are not for computers but does it matter??? They are from the Windows series too.--Nedko 066 (talk) 19:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows Server 2003 Datacenter[edit]

Does Window Server 2003 Datacenter has a 32-bit version? In the article it write (64-bit).

Windows CE & Windows Mobile[edit]

This article has absolutely no information about Windows CE and Windows Mobile. Although not intended for use on a full-size PC, Windows CE and Windows Mobile are legitimate members of the Windows family and its history, and deserve mentioning in this article. I am not an expert on this subject though, so I request that someone more knowledgeable than me please add this information if possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nt4server.png[edit]

The image Image:Nt4server.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Including up to Service Pack...?[edit]

What does this "including up to Service Pack X" on Windows NT 4.0 through Windows Server 2008 mean? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows 8[edit]

Is it just me, or is Wikipedia just not the place to reference blogs, forums, job postings and individual resumes as a way to discern what will be in Windows 8? I'm deleting this section until real sources come up that actually have something to say. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) This text was posted on Sept 18, 2009!

What's the point of deleting sourced information from the article??? I'd understand it if it were unsourced but it isnt. Yes, it's just you! But I'll not put the info back into the article though I feel sorely pressed to do so. I'll just park it right here so that it doesn't get lost:

Development of the planned Windows 8 is scarcely detailed in public, although job listings have mentioned improved functionality for file access in branch offices [1] and a next-generation user interface framework. [2]

Some internal projects geared for Windows 8 development have also become known, further confirming the development of Windows 8. Perhaps most notably thus far, major revamps for the Windows Test Technologies team (WTT) has been claimed to "change how the Windows division ships products", and the benefits will only start to be reaped during the time frame of Windows 8. [3] Microsoft claims:

User experience (UX) designer Sabine McLain also lists Windows 8 involvement as part of developing a "new generation tool for managing the work on Windows 8, named WorkTrack" for internal use by the company. Her résumé continues:

As for the planned server edition of Windows 8, it is scheduled for a release approximately in 2012 according to a slide from an official presentation made in Italy.[4][5] It is currently unknown if the server release will coincide with the client release, as it did with Windows 7.

Now I hope you'll allow new info to be added and not delete it again rightaway as you did several times within the last few weeks. --Krawunsel (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Chidori has been confirmed by various websites, including the dutch, to be the codename for Windows 8. Also, Windows 8 might get 128-bit support. (and else, Windows 9 will.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible to say where the Chidori rumor first started, but it just that, a rumor. No websites have ever had it "confirmed" by Microsoft. The 128-bit rumor is a complete hoax, the LinkedIn profile was fake, it contained whole sections that were copied from other profiles. Plus there was a huge contradiction -- it discussed IA-128 being compatible with IA-64, indicating that the 128-bit support would be an extension of Itanium, but it also talked about about AMD 128 and AMD has nothing to do with Itanium. Again it was never confirmed by Microsoft or any reliable source. (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A recent KB article from Microsoft confirms that the next version of Windows will be called Windows 8. [4] and a bug fix/feature that will be included in it. --Red3001 (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the entire Windows 8 section is not rational. There are a few knowns about it already, that can be put in the article.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Windows 8 and 9 section and 128-bit Windows[edit]

Someone undid a nice constructive edit to the section on Windows 8 and Windows 9.

Was it sourced? --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Those rumors turned out to be bogus, btw. (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Screenshot for early Windows[edit]

Hello, I think the "Early history: an expansion of MS-DOS" needs a screenshot of one of the early versions of Windows to show its origins and how much it has changed between then and now. What do you think? LovesMacs (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I added a picture of Windows 1.0. LovesMacs (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Logos replaced with wordmarks[edit]

May I ask why the logos for versions of Windows have been replaced by the logos minus the symbol? This is incomplete thus misrepresentation of the product. Furthermore, I believe the history of styles of the symbol was the primary reason that the logos were in here in the first place. Althepal (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Windows 7[edit]

In the article, it says Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows NT 6.1). Isn't Windows 7 - Windows NT 7.0? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JV Smithy (talkcontribs) 01:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope Windows Server 2008 R2 uses the same codebase as Windows 7, which uses the same codebase as Vista. Specifically Vista RTM uses 6.0.6001 onwards, Server 08 R2 uses 6.1.6001 and Win7 6.1.6700. Technically speaking, this would mean that Server R2 split off from Win7 whilst Win7 was still beta and going through code cleanup and bug fixing. (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Windows 8[edit]

The Dutch article does not mention Windows 8.-- (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


This article is missing Modular Windows, and the multimedia editions of 3.0, 3.1, 3.11 and 3.12 (or any East Asian 3.12 information) (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Windows 8 Section[edit]

Who deleted it and why? Windows 8 should be at least mentioned.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one justified deleting the entire section, I undid the changeJasper Deng (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC).
I expect it was justafiably removed as unsourced speculation. I have reduced it to what can be cited to reliable sources. Note there is nothing to support infinity as a codename other than blog and forum speculation based on the shape of the figure 8. Also, there is no need to specualte here with regards possible release dates for alphas, betas and RTMs. wjematherbigissue 23:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Speculation regarding Windows 8 gaming[edit]

I have again removed the speculative addtions regarding Windows 8 and a focus on gaming. Although this has been widely reported around the web, it is clear that it is all based on a single TechRadar article which is based on unknown anonymous sources. The referenced used for the addition made that clear, as do all other potential reliable sources, for example cnet, ITProPortal, etc. To quote cnet "Little is known about the next version of Windows", so rumours abound and given the obviously (highly) speculative nature of this, I do not think it appropriate for addition at this time. wjematherbigissue 09:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows Thin PC[edit]

Microsoft's announcement of Windows 7 SP1 and Server 2008 R2 SP1 today included an announcement of a new upcoming piece of software - Windows Thin PC or WinTPC, which is a feature- and size-reduced locked-down version of Windows 7 expressly designed to turn existing "thick clients" into thin clients. So it seems to be a conceptual descendant of Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs, albeit I think it's unlikely to be an actual codebase descendant - it seems more likely they just started with the Windows 7 or Windows Embedded client instead, since they said it's a, "version of Windows 7". However, like Fundamentals, it's going to be a SA benefit. So I'm not sure if mention of the product should go in the "Thin Client - Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs" section, or in a new section nearby (since they're both dealing with turning thick clients into thin clients).

Source: Windows Team Blog

I'm also not sure how this info should be added, but it's relevant. Therefore I embellished your text and added it in the WinFLP section. – (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Windows Thin PC is already covered in Windows 7 articles. I think it is Windows 7 editions. Fleet Command (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
You could remove both WinFLP (older, XP) and WinTPC (newer), if they are covered elsewhere. Or you could eliminate "thin PC" in the section title of a section only addressing WinFLP. Keeping it as it was is no option, "thin PC" means whatever Microsoft thinks it means today (= WinTPC). – (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Windows 9x/ME not all 32-bit[edit]

The opening paragraphs state, "Windows 95 completed the migration to 32-bit code ..." which is not entirely accurate. Although Windows 95 provided the first consumer version of windows to directly support running 32-bit applications, and it was the first consumer version of Windows to actually be an operating system (rather than just an application on top of DOS, as Windows 3.x & earlier were), the vast majority of the underlying OS was still 16-bit. Windows 98 & ME both replaced a small amount of the 16-bit OS components with 32-bit code, but it wasn't until Windows XP that Microsoft released a consumer version of Windows that was really completely 32-bit.

It should/could also be noted that Windows XP was completely derived from the Windows NT line (following Windows 2000) with pretty much zero code from the Win9x line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Support: You are right. Windows 95 was not entirely 32-bit. But I think the author meant that Windows 95 was the last OS to join the circle of 32-bit OS, thus making the circle complete. However, it was Windows XP that completed the migration to 32-bit because it was the first fully 32-bit consumers operating system. (Windows NT 3, 4 and Windows 2000 had already been 32-bit but were not for consumers.) Fleet Command (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Windows 2000 not for consumers does not exactly match reality, I got it on a Dell laptop "ready for XP" when XP was not yet ready, and years later I got a 2nd hand license for a 2nd hand Dell desktop, where the license was more expensive than the €60 for the PC. Of course the article is fine with its explanation of the NT vs. DOS lines. 95/98/ME belong to the DOS line from my POV, but that's a matter of taste — the introduction of long file names and FAT32 in MS DOS 7 (and not PC DOS 7) was a major step. – (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't say consumers couldn't buy it; I said it was not for consumers. See Windows 2000#Editions and Windows Neptune. Fleet Command (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The Windows 2000 article talks about power users, the "professional" edition apparently had upgrade paths to "XP pro" and "Vista pro". Unrelated, either you missed the point of moving a screenshot down in a section, or I missed why that's a bad idea:
header (current layout)                  header (another layout)  
lorem ipsum lorem +-----+                lorem ipsum lorem ipsum
ipsum lorem ipsum |image|                lorem ipsum lorem ipsum.
lorem ipsum.      +-----+                                 +-----+
                                         version list     |image|
version list                             version list     +-----+
version list
The idea was to conserve vertical space by filling the white space to the right of a narrow version list. – (talk) 05:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, power users, not consumers. And I don't know what screenshot business you are talking about. Diff please. (But not here. Please move the discussion to another section.) Fleet Command (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please watch WP:Crystal Ball[edit]

A number of editors have added, to the Windows 8 section, that Windows 8 is codenamed Windows Next and a beta will be released this summer. This is all speculative and should not be added! As most of these editors are very new, maybe this page needs semi-protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It should stay on, especially after Windows 8 milestone 1 was leaked —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

NT version for Windows 8[edit]

There is no source, not even while tracking my own Google Alerts, that says this will be NT version 6.2.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

There is not even an official mention of Windows 8 on Microsoft website. (Just in its forums). I say show no mercy. Fleet Command (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Logos removed[edit]

Per WP:NFCC, I have removed a number of (mostly) non-free logos used at the top of the individual sections on each version. I can't see why these logos are needed here. They have essentially no distinguishing identificatory value in the context of this page. They all look essentially the same – the same basic windows logo, with different bits of text next to it. The text is the only distinguishing feature, but this text is duplicating the section headings, which serve to identify the products just as well. I don't see why a reader of this page would need the images to recognize each of the products in question.

I recognize that one or two of the logos were marked as free text logos. These ones wouldn't technically have to go, of course, but I thought it would be better for the sake of consistency. Fut.Perf. 17:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I disagree but there is no juice left in me to disagree. I too have read NFCC but never found it SO strict. Fleet Command (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Build Number[edit]

The build number for Windows 8 is not necessarily 6.2. We have no reports of and have no way of knowing the final build number. Please do not re-add 6.2.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Everything in Wikipedia requires a reliable source. Fleet Command (talk) 11:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's delete "Product progression"[edit]

"Product progression" section is a list of links. But what is the use of this list? The navbox at the bottom of the article is much better than this list. As for showing "product progression", I think the article does a better job of doing it. Fleet Command (talk) 11:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

third paragraph of intro[edit]

... describing architectures is a mess. I don't have time to re-write this at the moment, but if someone else wants to look at it. Remember this should be a summary of something in a later section. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


I've removed the images for now since even though they were given permission by Microsoft, WP:NFCC states that we must have a specific use rationale for this page in particular and for every image.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I still do not see the point of this sudden action, but in order to be consequent I removed the other screenshots as well. (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Update information[edit]

Hi can we move into into updates like iOS version history so we would only list updates like windows 8.1 and then windows 8.1 update 1. (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^