Talk:Windows 10/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move 11 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Closing this early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Calidum T|C 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Windows 10 → Windows – The question "What version of Windows are you running" will cease to make sense. Windows 10 can be called just plain "Windows". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment Windows currently redirects to Microsoft Windows. Perhaps it can redirect to Windows (disambiguation) where forms of window that exist in non virtual forms of reality are also linked. GregKaye 19:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. MS Windows is clearly not the primary topic. This redirection shows systematic bias. The things on buildings and cars, etc, are the most likely primary topic, and because we're using computers doesn't make computer topics automatically primary topics. -- `67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• comment It sounds like a good idea to me. However, earlier versions are going to be used for quite a few years (i.e. keep the distinction). Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• "The question 'What version of Windows are you running' will cease to make sense." When is this supposed to happen?. —  AjaxSmack  20:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. Will someone please read the wiki naming problem section above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony0517 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Ahem, I did read it and noticed the part in the first line about "in the future". Let's wait for that future to occur per WP:CRYSTALBALL. —  AjaxSmack  18:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Windows 10 can be called just plain "Windows". No, it can't, because that's not its name. The official name of the latest version of Windows is Windows 10. It's not simply "Windows" regardless of what marketing Terry was pushing in that marketing statement. The hub Windows article talks about the series in general. The only thing that you could do is have a thing that says "For the latest version in the series, see Windows 10." Why complicate things with having to move Windows to Windows (series), then having to make a dis. page for it. Also, I'm pretty sure Windows 10 is more recognizable and precise (per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA) than simply "Windows" for the latest OS. If Microsoft comes out with a straight up thing that says "Windows 10 will from now on be simply called Windows" and changes its branding and all the stuff, like they have with Windows 10 for phone → Windows 10 Mobile, I'll be the first one to request a move of this page. Even that blog post from Microsoft says the name is specifically Windows 10 in the first sentence of it, and goes to list other subversions like Pro, Home, etc. This move is so ungrounded that it's ridiculous we're even considering it at this point in time. --188.246.72.98 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Keep the current redirect as a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to the main Microsoft Windows page (which basically serves as the WP:DABCONCEPT article for the entire family of these operating systems). This has been the most stable scenario. It should not be changed every single time a new version or the latest build is released, or it would be a case of WP:RECENTISM. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose -- Obviously not. Windows is a trademark for a series of operating systems by Microsoft. When we say Windows we refer to a whole series of Operating systems not just one operating system. --Chamith (talk) 05:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Strong oppose the thing on buildings should be the primary topic of "Windows". To claim it is the operating system is showing excessive WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. Just because we are on computers does not make every computer topic a primary topic -- 67.70.32.20 (talk) 09:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"proper"?

The article reads:
"Device Guard runs inside a hypervisor so it remains separated from the operating system proper."
What does it mean? Without the word proper the above sentence would be clear to me. I know the word proper only as an adjective. 85.193.207.245 (talk) 04:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:85.193.207.245: I'm not sure if this is a serious question, but in case it is: it's definition 4 from your link. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This was a perfectly serious question (I am a non-native speaker). Definition 4 from my link? Yes, now it makes sense. Thanks :-)

Thanks for ViperSnake151. "separated from the operating system itself" is perfectly clear to me. BTW - Now I understand the word "proper" in this context too, but "the operating system proper" still remains vague. Good edit :-) 85.193.207.245 (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

@85.193.207.245: It means this: "...the operating system, no more and no less. In other words it's an emphasiser, ruling out everything but the operating system and not including closely associated entities. Akld guy (talk) 12:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Availabilty

There appears to be a bug in the code behind the General Availability. It says (as of today - the 20th) that it is in 8 day's time. If it will be available on the 29th, then that is in (29-20=) 9 day's time. 85.255.232.151 (talk) 17:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a countdown to the release is needed. Just give the expected date of availability and someone can figure out how many days away that is, if they want to. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 17:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's part of the info box code. 86.145.213.115 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Due to time zone differences, some parts of the world are in advance of others. For example, when the release takes place on the 29th (US time), it will be the 30th in my country and the release will already be a day old. So, using your example and counting from the 20th, the release will take place 8 days later on the 28th (US), 29th (NZ). Akld guy (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In fact I just noticed that it passed midnight about 30 minutes ago here, so as I write this, it's already Sunday the 26th. Akld guy (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

And the bug still shows itself as it (currently) says that Windows 10 will be available in 1 day's time when it has been available for 1 day. 212.183.140.38 (talk) 07:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

A reminder

All content on Wikipedia must be written in a neutral and non-promotional manner. FleetCommand (talk · contribs) alerted me to wording used to describe the Editions of Windows 10 that served no purpose but to convey a promotional intent, so it has been removed. Please assist in the removal of promotional wording. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RTM

Despite many reports that build 10240 is the RTM build, Microsoft has repeatedly stated that Windows 10 has no RTM as such, as the manufacturers are essentially using the Insider builds (including 10240) instead of a specific RTM on. See "https://www.thurrott.com/windows/windows-10/4797/no-rtm-for-windows-10-microsoft-says" for example. 192.96.64.114 (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not Microsoft's PR service. Just because some marketing team says it isn't RTM doesn't mean that we will ignore the numerous reliable sources that have stated that build 10240 is definitely it. Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2015

Please Change "mathmetical" to "mathematical" as i believe the former is not form a valid form in the standard english language. Abbasbanuvohra (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Done Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 09:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

about the release date

should we change the release date to today instead of 0 days ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerrySa1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Its built into the template, and updates on its own. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

Windows 10 was not called "Windows 9" as in German "Windows Nien" means "Windows NO". This would not be good marketing so cleverly they skip 9 and go to 10. 86.26.15.215 (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Not done WP:OR, no reliable source. Also, nine in German is "neun". ViperSnake151  Talk  21:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 01/08/2015

Please remove the History of Microsoft Windows link from the ==See also== section per WP:SEEALSO - "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." 82.132.238.217 (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: could you point out precisely where History of Microsoft Windows is linked to in the article/navigation boxes already? From using a simple search function I have not been able to find this. Cannolis (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015

Informal grammar, third paragraph: '... Microsoft-selected driver or security patch known to be troublesome, from being forcibly installed in such cases; this problem arose for real in July 2015...

Suggest removing the 'for real', it's unnecessary. 222.153.17.146 (talk) 21:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Done Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Simple English

Hello, given all the activity that is in progress here at the English Wikipedia to provide the latest available information about Microsoft's upcoming OS, I have noticed that a lot of this information may not be fully comprehensible to the layman. I am happy to see that the Windows 10 article at the Simple English Wikipedia has been regularly updated with core details of the OS, specifically the new features in each build. I did, in the meantime, notice the tag at the top of that page which says: the English used may not be easy for everybody to understand. On a side note, articles for other versions of the OS do not exist there yet, such as Windows 10 Mobile.

Seeing that the Simple English article has notable viewership in the past few months, I advise that we find a small team of editors to devote time to working on improving the Simple version of this article so that it can be understood by laymen (with our goal of making the tag's message redundant), and at the same time expanding the Simple English Wikipedia with Windows 10 specific articles, such as Windows 10 Mobile. It may not seem like much effort now, but once Windows 10 is officially released, it will be a tremendous aid to novice users who need a concise summary of the upgrade and its features. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 03:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Release date

I was under the impression that Windows 10 is to be released on 29 July 2015. Where did the 1 August date come from? pcuser42 (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The August 1st date refers to the release of Windows 10 Education and Windows 10 Enterprise. While it is true that Windows 10 will be available on July 29th (referring the Home and Pro editions), that doesn't mean that all versions of Windows 10 will be released on the same time. Scatboot198 (talk) 04:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Upgrade

Is Windows 10 a required upgrade or anytime upgrade for Windows 7 and 8.1 users to be able to do the free upgrade, It's 16 Days time for Windows 10 to be out, Will there be a support status for Windows 10, but to be dated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan McEvoy (talk • contribs) 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Codename

I wanted to know if the codename Threshold is also used for the final version or just for Insider Preview builds. Best regards, Gavi1010 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

From what I can tell "threshold" was only used during the development of Windows 10 prior to the official unveiling of Windows 10, much like how "Project Spartan" eventually just became Microsoft Edge, if you feel as if the text doesn't explain this properly to the non-savvy readers feel free to add additional explanations of its usage. --42.113.155.5 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Roaming bills

Can someone add the horror story of Windows 10 updating itself over wireless network causing huge roaming bills. https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/latest-big-complaint-windows-10-blowing-data-caps-170557671.html Yosri (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would almost refrain from using Yahoo! as a source, from the launch of Windows 10 they've done absolutely nothing but spread the most anti-Microsoft rumours on the net, and most content of their articles seem to be extremely biased against Microsoft, I would almost not even list them as a reliable source. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

There is already an encyclopedic acknowledgement of bandwidth usage concerns under Reception. It's also Yahoo! reposting Boy Genius Report, by the way. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Incorporate Wikipedia Windows 10 Editions page into this page

Suggest that the data from Wikipedia Windows 10 Editions page be incorporated into this page and the Editions page be deleted. CPES (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Why? It is a common practice, as the information and specifics on this page would make this article too big. Some of your edits are good, but they just seem awkward and abrupt. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the main article would be improved by including the summary of editions as bullet points. The significance of the various editions is obscured in the prose sentences in the main article. Peter Campbell 14:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 Support status

Will Microsoft Windows 10 be the last Windows version, but will the mainstream and extended support status have to be dated on when Windows 10 Support will end, Is Windows 10 not a required free upgrade and can it be downloaded at anytime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan McEvoy (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Current version colors also for slow ring

For those who notice two colors for the current version; that's no error. It's for the current version for slow and fast ring. Please leave intact. Notice that this was already discussed on the talk page, but shortly thereafter the entire talk page was archived. So may this serve as a kind reminder: do not remove the color for current version of the slow ring. Please keep in mind that, according to MS, the large majority of Windows insider users are in the slow ring. PizzaMan (♨♨) 23:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it should be enough to have two purple builds showing when there are two current preview builds. If anyone wants to know which rings they've been released to, they can see that in the release date column. Having a separate color for each ring doesn't work, because they're sometimes on the same build (like today.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Upgrade compatability

User931 Hello I saw your recent edits in the upgrade compatibility section, and I have to note that the wikitable you moved from the article Windows 10 editions was originally here on the Windows 10 page until user ViperSnake removed it for unexplained reasons, the original table looked like this:

Windows 10 free upgrade matrix
(for the first year of availability)

Windows version and edition	Eligible Windows 10 upgrade edition
Windows 7 Starter	Windows 10 Home
Windows 7 Home Basic
Windows 7 Home Premium
Windows 8.1 with Bing
Windows 8.1
Windows 7 Professional	Windows 10 Pro
Windows 7 Ultimate
Windows 8.1 Pro
Windows 7 Enterprise	Not eligible
Windows 8 Enterprise
Windows 8.1 Enterprise
Windows RT

In fear that your edits might be seen as disruptive I want to open up a conversation where the pros and cons of having this in the main Windows 10 article as opposed to in the editions article, as it was previously removed from this page I wonder if the removal might repeat itself, though at the time no explanation might have been given, this doesn't necessarily mean that its removal was unjustified. --42.113.73.178 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

wiki naming problem

With Windows 10 being rolled out as Software as a Service, and upgraded slowly with new features and functionality, with Windows 10 being the last version, this poses a problem for this Wikipedia page. In the future, with all these small updates that bring new features and functionality, listing them all will eventually fill up this wiki. As they are all small updates, we can't really have a page for each of them either. As Windows 10 is the last version and we can't really come up with appropriate names for individual pages. We can't just name something like Redstone update either, as there are many small functionality and feature updates in between as well, as mentioned above. This is quite a big problem for Wikipedia. Here are my suggestions. If you have one please do contribute. Below I am suggesting what we can name new pages, and their respective content

• 1. Name pages based on dates of updates, ex. Windows 10 Fall 2016 updates ; with big releases getting their own individual pages, ex. Windows 10 Redstone updates
• 2. Name pages based on version/build numbers, ex. Windows 10 builds 10200 - 10500
• 3. Include minor updates under pages about major releases, ex. List all updates released after Redstone to next major release in the Redstone article

• Note that I am only saying Redstone as it is the current codename and there is no official name. I intend that when the relevant page is created it'd be under the official name.

Please contribute your opinions and suggestions for this matter below.Tony0517 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Tony0517:I suggest making it similar to either Windows Phone version history/Xbox One system software and eventually WP:SPLIT the version history when it's done, or taking the OS X approach where every iteration has a separate page, though the latter will be very dependent on how the future updates to Windows 10 are marketed and sold so maybe having a version history page would be best.

--58.187.228.2 (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of free upgrade?

I'm very angry over the way the free upgrade is being portrayed. I don't know whether Microsoft has deliberately introduced an ambiguity for marketing purposes or whether the article has misinterpreted Microsoft's announcement. As I understand it, for the first year, beginning 29 July 2015, users who qualified and registered will receive a free download of Windows 10, and subsequent updates as they are released. So far so good. Now, what happens on 29 July 2016? Are the recipients still entitled to (free) updates from that date onwards? Or are they going to be forced to purchase the product in order to continue receiving updates? Is this a one-year free trial? The page needs to make things a lot clearer than they are right now. Akld guy (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft has always said that Windows 10 is available for no charge for one year, after which people must pay for new copies of Windows 10. Once you receive the free upgrade, it's free for life. pcuser42 (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not address the issue that I raised: whether free updates will still be available when the one year period expires. The offer I've received from Microsoft does indeed say that Windows 10 will be "free for life" and that it's not a trial. But if updates cease after 12 months, effectively it has turned into a trial if the OS becomes unusable. I can see a situation where, after the period expires, an update to Adobe FlashPlayer renders it incompatible, meaning that one won't be able to watch YouTube videos. At that stage, uninstalling Win10 and going back to Win7 or 8.1 might be disallowed or achievable only with a great deal of trouble. Akld guy (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would updates cease after one year? Never heard that rumour myself. pcuser42 (talk) 06:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Youtube does not use Adobe Flash any more, but HTML5. Naki (talk) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pcuser42: Microsoft has not specifically said that updates will continue. Until they do, we could assume they won't. "Free for life" means nothing if a third party's (example: FlashPlayer) update makes a Win10 feature unusable. Legally, in that case, Microsoft would not be at fault - you'd still have Win10 for life, but it would be degraded. Akld guy (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Naki: My understanding is that YouTube does still use FlashPlayer, but is migrating towards HTML5 exclusively. Do you have a source for your claim? Akld guy (talk) 10:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Nothing stops that scenario from happening on any version of Windows as Microsoft is not in direct control of Flash updates. If Samsung can disable Windows Update, third party programs can do pretty much anything. pcuser42 (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is still skirting around the question I asked. Will or will not Microsoft continue free updates after the 12 month takeup period? Microsoft has not specifically stated so, and the WP article does not answer the question for readers. Akld guy (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google tells me that yes you will get updates after one year. http://www.pcgamer.com/microsoft-windows-10-will-not-be-sold-as-a-subscription/ pcuser42 (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Pcuser42: That link does indeed seem to settle the issue, at least verbally and as of January 2015. It will be interesting to see what the Terms & Conditions state, when the download is ready for install. Akld guy (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: Nope, this is no claim, but a fact. On computers, Youtube only uses Adobe Flash if the link to the video is inline, such as part of a message/post in online forums. If you visit Youtube directly, you will see it will always use HTML5. You can easily check this on PC/Mac using your preferred web browser. Thanks! :) Naki (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Gratis upgrade wikitable

Recently a user (NeoGeneric, but I don't know how to ping someone) has removed the wikitable with a valid reason, it has become confusing, now this is how it looked at the time of its removal.

Windows 10 upgrade paths

	7 Starter	7 Home Basic	7 Home Premium	8.1	8.1 with Bing	7 Professional	7 Ultimate	8.1 Pro	XP	Vista	7 Enterprise	8	8 Pro	8 Enterprise	8.1 Enterprise	RT	RT 8.1
Edition	Home					Pro			None

This wikitable in itself was modified by various users who have removed several key parts of it which had made it into this, originally the table looked like this:

Windows 10 free upgrade matrix
(for the first year of availability)

Windows version and edition	Eligible Windows 10 upgrade edition
Windows 7 Starter	Windows 10 Home
Windows 7 Home Basic
Windows 7 Home Premium
Windows 8.1 with Bing
Windows 8.1
Windows 7 Professional	Windows 10 Pro
Windows 7 Ultimate
Windows 8.1 Pro
Windows 7 Enterprise	Not eligible
Windows 8 Enterprise
Windows 8.1 Enterprise
Windows RT 8.1

As you can see here the original wikitable (note that I've added the "8.1" to Windows RT as the latest version is officially called "Windows RT 8.1") in itself was very much clear, as the fact that Microsoft Windows 8 and versions older than Windows 7 are ineligible for the upgrade, this wikitable's original and primary goal was to simply show which edition of Windows 10 users who got the free upgrade would get, it didn't state that Windows Enterprise users wouldn't be able to upgrade, just that it wouldn't be free, so I suggest inserting the original wikitable and making sure that no more confusing modifications will be made in the future, or perhaps we should move this to the Windows 10 editions page where it would be more suited. --1.55.1.190 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to write at the "as the fact that Microsoft Windows 8 and versions older than Windows 7 are ineligible for the upgrade," part that this was already mentioned in the text above thus would be redundant to add to table.

--1.55.1.190 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows 10

I note that I couldn't find any critical voices in the article. This seems odd as there is plenty to criticize. Starting with http://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.html - although some of those issues may be specific to windows versions before 10. Anyway, I just wanted to mention this as I don't have time to do anything about it at the moment. --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I made some changes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_10#Free_upgrade which is a start I guess --duncan.lithgow (talk) 13:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

A criticism section could be added similar to the one in the Windows Vista article. Peter Campbell 14:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, this article reads like marketing material. Where is obvious criticism re user privacy, and and lack of user control over updates, as well as forced integration of horrible bing? --roger.tan (talk) 21 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.57.156 (talk)

Indeed, it's like Google, but on steroids. Instead of just collecting data (which Windows 10 does, extensively), they actually openly admit that they use your data. Both for themselves and for the U.S government:

https://edri.org/microsofts-new-small-print-how-your-personal-data-abused/

RhoDaZZ (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT

I suggest a split moving Windows 10 § Removed features -> List of features removed in Windows 10, and Windows 10 § Features -> Features new to Windows 10 to fit the style of other Microsoft Windows-related articles. --Hoang the Hoangest (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support new features, oppose removed features. There are not enough details for an article on removed. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Support new features article. It is clear these features are themselves notable and there is enough content to split them off. Oppose removed features. Not only is there not enough content to justify this split currently, but for all features that would have enough coverage for notability, it's best to handle their discontinuation in the feature's article (as is done with Windows Media Center). ~ Rob^Talk 07:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"PC" article only or general/"umbrella" (w/ARM..)

Abhishikt, about this edit, I'm fine with either this article being about only the desktop or a general article about all Windows 10 variants. It should only be clear which it is. If it is a general one, an "umbrella one" (similar to Microsoft Windows or Windows NT), including about Windows 10 Mobile (not released) and the IoT variant for Raspberry Pi then Win10 supports ARMv7. I understand the infobox has limited space.. at least the article should clarify that ARM is the exception. comp.arch (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is about Windows 10 on PC. Due to its branding as an edition, Windows 10 Mobile and Windows 10 IoT have brief mentions, but we are not strictly adhering to Microsoft's assertion this is the same OS on all platforms. They all have functional differences (i.e. Windows 10 Mobile is based off Windows Phone and cannot run Win32 software) ViperSnake151  Talk  20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Wifi sense optout

The section "Online services and functionality" states "Wi-Fi Sense is not usable [with] networks with "_optout" at the end of their SSID" refering to an PC World article that states just that. However the PC World article links to a how to article at microsoft.com that states "To opt your network out of Wi-Fi Sense, you can change your network name to include the phrase _optout in it" and there is no mention that the _optout part has to be at the end.

Does anybody know more details about this?

In the meantime I think the sentence should be changed.

Also the keyword _nomap to stop location providers from using the networks location NEEDS to be entered at the end of the SSID so I don't think Microsoft would force admins from choosing ether _nomap or _optout as you can't have both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.210.90.101 (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

DRM, SecuROM

About this edit. I put in the SecuROM part, with a source. Now I have a dilemma.. if only there is one counterexample, and a game with SecurROM works, what I put in is then wrong, but might still be right, with a version of SecurROM if there are versions.. Still Billybobjoe321 who deleted the DRM part used WP:OR.

I like the truth (even with WP:OR) more than (just) sources.. In general, I'm sure Windows 10, still supports DRM, at least their own. comp.arch (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Possible useful reference

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9060891/microsoft-windows-10-myerson-belfiore-aul-spencer-interview

archive link

https://web.archive.org/web/20150905070209/http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/29/9060891/microsoft-windows-10-myerson-belfiore-aul-spencer-interview

Getting rid of this from top of talk page.

— Cirt (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 10/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you!

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Several one-sentence-long-paragraphs and two-sentence-long-paragraphs and short paragraphs. Please merge these into other paragraphs, or expand them.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead sect is good. However I see the article has been tagged with {{too long}}. Please explain. Who tagged it? Has this been discussed on the talk page? What about this discussion Talk:Windows_10#WP:SPLIT ? Is this ongoing still or going to be addressed?
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I added one or two cite needed tags that need to be addressed. Otherwise, most impressive.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Please go through and try to make sure all cites are formatted properly with as much cite info fields as possible. Consider standardizing with WP:CIT templates. There are a few bare links cited with no other info that should be formatted properly.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here. I particularly like the good use of secondary sources for the Reception sect, great job!
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Most definitely covers major aspects. See concerns as noted above that the article might be too long.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article tags as too long and this issue appears to still be unresolved.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I see several talk page sections raising neutrality issues. Not necessarily a major thing, but please explain below how these were addressed amicably between all parties commenting. These include: Talk:Windows_10#Criticism_of_Windows_10, and Talk:Windows_10#NPOV_issue:_Operating_system_as_a_service, and again at Talk:Windows_10#NPOV_Issue.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Please explain, below, unstable periods in article edit history seen on 24 September 2015, 19 September 2015, 20 September 2015, and 12 September 2015.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Please ask an admin to delete prior version of image at File:Windows 10 build 10240 (RTM).png. Please expand a bit more on File:Virtual Desktops in Windows 10.png fair use rationale, perhaps a numbered bullet list to strengthen fair use rationale on image page for durability into the future.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here.
	7. Overall assessment.	GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Please respond, below this review, and not interspersed throughout, thank you! — Cirt (talk) 20:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• The {{very long}} tag was added by Tony0517. This article currently has a prose size of 45KB, which is acceptable. I have removed the tag. sst^flyer 03:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay sounds good for now. IFF the user never explained the rationale for the tag on the article talk page at the time, the tag can be removed. If the user did, the tag should be discussed. If the user chooses to add the tag back after now, there might be instability issues. Keep us posted here, — Cirt (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Expansion of File:Virtual Desktops in Windows 10.png fair use rationale: done. sst✈ 10:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• 2b: consistent citations is a FA criterion, not a GA requirement. I have, however, fixed all bare URL citations with WP:REFILL. sst✈ 11:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• 1a: most done. As for others, I do not want to violate criterion 3b. sst✈ 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I think JeffyP was correct with the image at File:Windows 10 build 10240 (RTM).png, and there should really be a lower resolution version uploaded and the larger prior versions deleted by an admin. — Cirt (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

JeffyP only reduced the file size of the image, not the resolution. Completely unnecessary, in my opinion. Also, Microsoft allows the use of these images, and in fact does not allow modification of screenshots of Microsoft products with modifications, apart from resizes. sst✈ 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, that makes sense, passed this one as GA. — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 is Modular

This guy, Jerry Nixon (who is a Microsoft Developer affiliated with the Windows 10 project) states that windows 10 is a fully modular operating system now due to code refactoring. It seems like this information went by relatively unnoticed and is a bit obscure because it is not that interesting for the general public.

That's a self-published source and we do not typically allow them. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:02, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

He appears to be rather credible, being a Microsoft development executive, credited on the BBC. So I think that the idea of Windows Core should be highlighted in Wikipedia because it can shed light on Windows 10 being the last version of windows/becoming a subscription service.

References

Must inability to defer updates on Windows 10 Home be mentioned in lead?

The lead must summarize important facts of the article.

There have been conflicts over whether the lead should contain acknowledgement that Home versions of Windows 10 must install all updates as they are released, with no ability to skip or defer updates that may cause issues. It has been argued that it is a violation of neutral point of view not to include this statement in the lead as "conceal[ment] of an important fact", but I do not feel that this statement should be included in the lead, as it has to be a summary of major points.

Per WP:BRD, please discuss. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a noticeable difference to previous versions of Windows, especially since it is a part of the "software as a service" concept of Windows 10 - this obviously has positive effects, but there are also drawbacks and stating only positive effects while concealing drawbacks would violate the neutral point of view.

The explanation of this has to be brief in the lead, but I think it is; for more detailed information, the reader may look into the sections of the article, in particular which are the details: The Enterprise LTSB version is the only version of Windows 10 which allows you to decline updates - every other version does not allow this.

In the past there were some updates from Windows that caused damage to some systems because of errors in the programming, therefore forcing all updates can potentially threat system stabilty (that may be the reason why LTSB exists since there are some commercial uses where this feature might be really dangerous).

Furthermore, Windows has implemented "important" updates for Win7 and Win8.1 in the past that turned out just to nag the user to reserve Windows 10. This behavior might look suspicious to some people so there is reason to be wary about these changes. In all other versions you also can delete updates after they were installed in case they caused problems but this will not be possible in Windows 10.

Concluding I think this explanation should stay in the lead because there are some important changes about the update system - basically the entire update concept - that one should be noticed of by reading the lead. (And might read further details in the other sections.) -User:Tscherpownik (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Concur with keeping in lead, but with correction per very recent on-line articles (e.g., PC Magazine) stating automatic update would be the default mode, but users can choose to receive updates as convenient. Also, though not widely discussed, there are times when automatic update may not be possible or wise, e.g., anytime bandwidth is otherwise seriously limited...such as on a cruise ship. Am unqualified to make an up-to-date entry. Regards, Hennejohn (talk) 20:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding Thresholds After Builds

Should we keep the (TH1) and (TH2) at the end of build names, or would that add confusion? If so, should we have them at the end of every build, or just the RTM of TH1, the RTM of TH2, etc.? I had them on every build after the release of 10240, but someone removed them without giving an explanation. The Professor123 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reception

Please do not delete information about Reception on market share. For each OS is important how is accepted on market in first few months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartmo (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I consider Net Applications to be an unreliable source. See Talk:Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Use_of_Net_Applications. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What about Net Marketshare? The Professor123 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

That is Net Applications. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Version History

¿Wouldn't the Version History be better for the Windows Insider article? as the present R.T.M. version is different from the later mentions in the template. Not that I mind the template being in this article, but I wonder why content that could just as well be in the Windows Insider page be here, kind of like how the Xbox One system software has its own change log as opposed to having it on the main Xbox One page. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

Update latest preview release to 10576

Sabiansoldier (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Help & Support

Codename Lisa and I have had quite a discussion regarding whether Help & Support, as a separate program, was removed or not in Windows 10.

Lisa says it was removed in Windows 8.1 (not Windows 8.0), which means that it's automatically gone.

However, this isn't true as I've found out. On my Windows 8.1 laptop, I am able to open Help & Support (the same one from Windows XP, Vista, and 7) just fine.

It's just Windows 10 that removed Help & Support. If you open MS Paint, for example, and you click the blue "?" at the top right corner, your web browser will open with a Bing search for "How to get help in Windows 10". Windows 10 no longer includes Help & Support as a separate program. I still think that the fact that it no longer exists/works in Windows 10 should be added to the article under the "Features Removed" section.

Here's the discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Codename_Lisa#Windows_10 Billybobjoe321 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

That is original research. You must provide a reliable, secondary source. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Billybobjoe321: Did you just say Bing? Remember my talk page discussion? Fleet Command says Getting Started starts but you say Bing. Which one of you two is right?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Isn't the app called Get Started? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: Doesn't Windows 10 come with a Contact Support app? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa:I'm right. I have Windows 10 on my desktop. Whenever I click the blue "?" on any program (like MS Paint), it will open your default web browser with a Bing search for "how to get help in Windows 10".

As far as " Help & Support" being in Windows 8.1, I'm also right. I have Windows 8.1 on my laptop and I'm not manufacturing screenshots. If you don't believe either of my explanations, why don't you install Oracle VirtualBox, then download the Windows 8.1 Enterprise and Windows 10 Emterprise evaluations and see for yourself. And yes, the "metro app" in Windows 10 is called "Get Started". What does the " Contact Support" metro app have to do with anything?

Billybobjoe321 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It the question of whether it is removed, renamed or split into two apps. Helps you while looking for the sources. Fleet Command (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

New Bott source

For anyone to add to the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@RJaguar3: I've read it too. If you have anything specific in mind please say. But given what Wikipedia requires, I'd that source has nothing new. Every time Microsoft slightly changes the privacy policy Bott writers an article claiming the change will solve all our problems! But the problem is that Microsoft still collects data and some people do not want to give any. Fleet Command (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

Ars Technica also commented on the change in the policy too. That article is from a more level-headed writer. It says the new policy brings more clarity to areas related to people's greatest fears. But basically, nothing has changed.

That said, I really love to rewrite the whole privacy section of this article; it is really a news snippet with no planning and no objectives. There is a trend that the section does not exhibit. Alas, I don't have that kind of time these days. I may be forced to retire soon.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Request to update version number

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can update the latest version number from 1511 (10.0.10586.3) to 1511 (10.0.10586.14)? Unfortunately all of the sources I've seen doesn't cite this number, or is not written in English (typically Russian). Wagnerp16 (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Wagnerp16

Did you notice that the field is called "latest release version" not "latest patch"? In case of Windows, this very important because 10.0.10586 will have support regardless of whether it is .3 or .33333.

Russian is also okay. A reliable source is not judged by its language. We have Russian-speaking Wikipedians that can help.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa and Wagnerp16,

Should the ".3" be removed from 10.0.10586.3, then? The November update is officially that version number, but as we all know, we're now at 10.0.10586.17. Should we just remove the ".3", or at least clarify that "Latest release" is referring to the latest major build change?

Billybobjoe321 (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with that. My initial reasoning was in response to Wagnerp16's original reason and its emphasis. I am also okay with providing a source that allows us to keep .3, .14 or .whatever. Wikipedia is not censored after all.

Perhaps you want me to clarify my stance and say exactly to what I am opposed. Well. I have seen version number vandalism several times so far. More than that, I've seen incorrect version number reporting by mistake. I have also seen vandals who take advantage of the latter to do the former. And because the importance of the last number is marginal, version numbers without a source should be challenged and deleted.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm wondering if it would be easier to read and manage if the string was split up into three fields, i.e. 'Main Branch' = 1511, 'Stable Release' = 10.0.10586 and then 'Latest CU' = 17 or whatever it is at the time? The rationale for this is the way the branches are set-up. Once 'Redstone' is released next year, we can expect 1511 to change to 16xx, 10.0.10586 to 10.x.xxxx and 1x to xx. Wagnerp16 (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issue: Operating system as a service

So, Microsoft makes another version of Windows, make Windows updates mandatory and calls its OS "operating system as a service". Nothing else has changed: People get updates as they always did, except this time, automatic updates cannot be disabled.

For me, this looks like a marketing move. For me, from a neutral point of view, either Windows has always been operating system as a service, or it has never been and it isn't now either. In either cases, the article's emphasis on "operating system as a service" is POV. In other words, the following...

Microsoft described Windows 10 as an operating system as a service that would receive ongoing updates to its features and functionality, augmented with the ability for enterprise environments to receive non-critical updates at a slower pace, or use long-term support milestones that will only receive critical updates, such as security patches, over their five-year lifespan of mainstream support.

...is nothing new. It has always been like that.

What do you guys think? Fleet Command (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What has changed is the frequency of large updates. Instead of service packs and new releases, Windows 10 constantly gets new features. That's what "as a service" is referring to. pcuser42 (talk) 08:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Larger updates is nothing new either. Windows Vista had larger updates than Windows XP. Windows XP has larger updates than Windows 98. As for "constantly gets new features", this nothing new either: Microsoft always gave this promise and never stood by it. The only exception is Windows XP SP2. Fleet Command (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

In previous versions of Windows up to Windows 7, Microsoft promised to deliver "new features when needed". Basically, security features and updates to Internet Explorer. New features have been added over time to Windows 7 and prior, including the many Internet Explorer updates, Segoe Symbol update, MSE update, and so on. As of Windows 8, Microsoft started to claim to deliver "new features" (and not just when needed). And they did just that, Windows 8.1 was an update to Windows 8, and so was Windows 8.1 Update, and now Windows 10. Which also makes Windows 7 fill in to that promis as they also got a free update.

However, prior to Windows 8, all updates where component updates and not OS updates. And that's not what "as a service" stands for because these updates aren't constant, with Windows 10, they are, and we're already seeing that with the current Insider Previews and Windows Update itself that rereleases every update over and over again for people that jump in later so they don't have to download multiple updates, restart, and update again, that's no longer the case with Windows 10 because of Microsofts WaaS-aproach. So no, this is not marketing, there certainly are major differences in how updates are handled.--YannickFran (talk) 22:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe the tricky part of the is that up to Windows 7, you got the socalled service packs which installed most major, more-encompassing updates in a single go, and all other updates -which were more frequently already- were more so to keep windows up to date with its services (such as explorer and the lot). Now all updates come trickling in when they are ready, and are also no longer based on the neededness to update a particular part of the system. Which, as described above me: will lead to the OS changing and "Being updated" faster with time. It becomes more adaptive to its environment if you will. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

NPOV Issue

The article lacks (and contributors seem to be suppressing) information which may show Windows 10 in a negative light potentially violating the NPOV requirement. This article may be a candidate for a POV tag. See FleetCommand post earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.122.2 (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are showing Windows 10 in a negative light. Did you not read the reception section? Also, seriously, if this is about reporting those Office 2013 issues, this is irrelevant to the subject of the article. It is about Windows 10, not software broken by Windows 10. WP:UNDUE also applies; we must "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source." This, in particular, refers to secondary sources that qualify under WP:RS. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Major software compatibilities are certainly relevant to an encyclopedic description of Windows 10. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.122.2 (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a "major software compatibilities". This is just a glitch caused in a certain upgrade scenario, that will be fixed, thus falling under WP:NOTNEWS. It is biased to treat Microsoft software higher than third-party software that may had also been broken by Windows 10, and we don't list all the examples of that either. The alleged removal of SafeDisc/SecuROM support is. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"that will be fixed" falls under WP:CRYSTAL in general, unless you have good reason to think a trivial issue and a fix coming fast? "The alleged removal of SafeDisc/SecuROM support is" what? WP:NPOV? Or a glitch? I only provided source for SecuROM on good faith. If its wrong, see my section above, please keep it out. It (DRM-schemes) is however just not a software. A glitch affecting one software (there may never be a glitch that specific, except maybe when Microsoft, allegedly, broke Lotus 1-2-3 at the time (DOS-era?) time). Lately, Windows 95+ (see Chen), Microsoft has really tried to maintain compatibility. Microsoft, kind of started DRM (not general copy protection), and I'm not saying they actively try to suppress other DRM implementations, but a broken DRM implementation, breaks many games, not just one software. Maybe, it needs to stay in *IF* true, as sometimes Microsoft breaks compatibility on purpose or accidentally, at least until fixed, per WP:CRYSTAL(?) comp.arch (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I do have one question here which is related to the "Update provided for genuine windows 7 nd 8.1 devices. Somewhere in the reception part (I think) it said that some people suffered from stuff being uninstalled from their devices during the windows 10 update (assuming these to be windows 7 /8.1 devices) which were eligable for upgrading.... Is there more information regarding this type of behavior? I would reckon it is VERY worthy to mention if one were to upgrade their system with a new OS (and from 7 to 10 a quite different one at that) it could result in losing data or having games/ programs uninstalled without their desire, especially if happened un announced. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

FYI, referencing upgrades vs. updates

For the purpose of this article:

• Update or patch refers to cumulative updates and security patches distributed through Windows Update. They are installed as part of a normal process.
• Upgrade refers to an "update" that installs an entirely new build of Windows 10, and thus must, at this point in time, go through the standard Windows upgrade process (denoted by the "Upgrading Windows" screen and circular progress bar).

Even though Microsoft has sometimes referred to the 1511 upgrade as a "November Update", it is actually an upgrade to Windows 10 (November 2015) because it installs a new build, is actually labelled as an upgrade in Windows Update ("Upgrade to Windows 10 (edition), version 1511, 10586") plus the function for delaying these "updates" on Windows 10 Pro is labelled as "Defer upgrades", meaning that our use of the term "upgrade" in this context is technically correct in relation to Microsoft's nomenclature in defining them. As these "version numbers" are literally just using the Ubuntu versioning system without a period (i.e. YY.MM), and Microsoft's support lifecycle referred to RTM as "Windows 10, released in July 2015", referencing these upgrades by both a codename string (TH2) and by the expanded form of the version number (November 2015 upgrade) is preferable. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds rational, and according to common practice. —Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether or not it is an "upgrade" or an "update" on the technical side, the official name of this update is "Windows 10 November Update". There is no where where Microsoft states another name. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be objective, yet you don't care about the actual names and just paste on a name you invented yourself.--YannickFran (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Microsoft states another name right in the Windows Update window, "Upgrade to Windows 10, version 1511, 10586". It is the November 2015 upgrade, because what if they release another upgrade in November next year? (that would presumably be version 1611 per this new pattern). For our purposes, we are treating these updates as what they are: new builds, just like the original development process. There is a specific implication to the word "upgrade" in regards to the new update system, and to maintain clarity, we must adhere to it. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree to this. There is an extensive prctise in what is known as "Version Control" And the technical difference between an 'Update' and 'Upgrade' is part of that practise. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 update 17 Nov 2015

I installed a Windows 10 update today and I see the default programs have all been changed to Microsoft ones. Am I going to have to change them back again every time I install an update? Biscuittin (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Biscuittin

Softpedia has criticized Windows 10 exactly for this. So, if you want to put it in the article, you know where to find the source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the page please? I think this might lead to another case of Microsoft Corp v Commission. Biscuittin (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Here: [1] and [2]

Don't be mislead by the title. The prose says something close to what you said.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, including @ViperSnake151:.

I understand that you already placed information about the problems that the November update caused for some users under "Reception", but don't you think it would be better to have it under "November update", since more and more information is starting to be available about the update's problems (including the fact that it's no longer available). Thanks. Billybobjoe321 (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

We do not mix opinion in with factual content. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

How is talking about the problems that the update brings an opinion? It's a fact that it removed some people's programs and it's also a fact that it changed some people's defaults.

Regards, Billybobjoe321 (talk) 04:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

And we have this: Windows 10 Update KB3120677 Allegedly Resetting Default Apps, Privacy Config.

—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Can w make a fair assessment of how severe this behavior is? from objective point of view: upgrading to Windows 10 and as side-effect having your data deleted/reset is quite a valuable piece of knowledge users should know. On personal view: I'm currently using windows 7, and have a prompt which allows me to install Windows 10. ok would be cool to do this for free.... but what is the potential to lose data I have. which things can go wrong and be lost? Surely more poeple would like to know, and it certainly is worth mentioning. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Clean up intro

So... the intro of this article is becoming pretty big and contains a lot of information that doesn't belong in a summary at all. I don't know about you guys, but I have to scroll before to be able to read the 5th paragraph in the intro. And as far as intros go, when you need to scroll to read a 5th paragraph, it fails in being an intro. --84.195.214.118 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the last two paragraphs could be shorted and merged into one. Tony0517 (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically the length ultimately depends on the entire article and its complexity. However I do agree that in this case the latter partof the article contains many things which need not be in there. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Date format

The rules for date formats are pretty simple: The article started with MDY dates [3] and should still use MDY dates, per WP:DATERET. This keeps it consistent with both Microsoft and Microsoft Windows. The company being multinational is irrelevant, because both formats are still acceptable. In fact, one could argue that a company founded, headquartered and traded in the US has strong ties to the US. But even ignoring that, we would still use the first format used. Calidum T|C 14:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

This is exactly right. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this point. The article was started with MDY and used MDY predominately until it was changed back in August without any discussion on the talk page. Per MOS:DATEFORMAT: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." There have been numerous discussions on this topic over the years, and the consensus has always been that you don't just come along and change the established format like was done back in August without a full discussion on the talk page and a very good reason behind the change like "strong national ties". There was never any discussion on this talk page back in August about such change, and if there are any "strong national ties" to this article, it would be to the U.S. Therefore, the article must be changed back to MDY format to comply with long-established Wikipedia policy and consensus on this topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), who made the initial change in August [4] agreed and tried to have it changed back [5] but was subsequently reverted. Calidum T|C 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a similar thing happened to the Windows 7 and Windows 8 articles back in late July and August. Those articles will have to be reverted to MDY formatting as well to comply with Wikipedia policy. This is a very bright-line rule in Wikipedia policy with few exceptions to it in order to avoid constant edit wars over the date formatting. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Calidum

What you say is only half of the policy and takes second priority. The first priority rule is: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it". The article has evolved into a Good Article already using one date style. And WP:DATESRET does not permit changing date style en masse for historic reasons like it is being done here.

And as for ViperSnake151, I have told him times and again not switch date formats in neither of the directions.[6] Except I am not stalking him to see when he does it. Seriously, can't we live without seeing so many editors mass-converting dates because some long-forgotten diff had that date format?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The article used MDY for 11 months after its creation. Can you really say it "evolved" using another format? Calidum 22:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, you are misunderstanding the policy. The article was established with and "evolved" for almost a year with the mdy format until it was unilaterally changed by one editor without any discussion in clear violation of well-established Wikipedia policy. The format change was therefore invalid. Discussions on date format and spelling/style of English come up from time to time, and when they do the policy is pretty much always enforced in this manner. Sometimes years will go by before reverting to the original style (see Yogurt) but eventually it does happen. This policy might seem silly and arbitrary, but it isn't. Since no style of English or dates is superior to another, some sort of bright-line, objective rule is necessary to keep editors from constantly warring over their preferred style. This rule of retaining the original style is what "keeps the peace". Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Rreagan007: Hi. You seem to have established that there can be a fourth reading of the policy too. I've had this discussion in three different versions in the past. Everyone seems to read the policy differently. But the funny thing is: Everyone thinks the policy is "very clear" on this subject, "there is only one reading" and that keeping up with that reading is that peace is kept. And yet, here is the fourth reading and I keep seeing this dispute popping up. So, let it be.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In regards to this particular case, I honestly don't see how the policy could be logically interpreted in any other way than I have. The article clearly started with and predominantly used MDY for most of its history until 1 editor comes in and unilaterally changes it without any discussion. The policy clearly says to use the format that the article was started with and evolved to use predominantly and the policy further says that any format change must be discussed on the talk page first, which it never was. And trying to claim that one editor swooping in and unilaterally changing formats without discussion as required by the policy is in any way an "evolution" of the article is simply preposterous. Evolution of an article happens slowly and gradually over time with input by numerous different editors, not all at once by a single editor. That is the exact type of editing behavior that the policy is meant to prevent, and you seem to be trying to twist it to reinforce such behavior. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I honestly don't see [~snip~] Yes. It was obvious from the beginning that you don't see. Not that there is any shame in it: A dispute occurs when one editor honestly does not see how the other editor interprets the rules. (Mind you: Not policy! WP:DATESRET is not a policy. It is a part of MOS.) Still, I've seen too many date-related fights in this Wikipedia. Disputants in it do not see how the other person sees. But most importantly, they are usually not interested to see. Usually, "I honestly don't see" implies "and don't care to see either, so long as it is my way". In fact, I still think people first decide to change the date and then decide on how they "see" this not-a-policy page.) Fleet Command (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"And trying to claim that one editor swooping in and unilaterally changing formats without discussion as required by the policy is in any way an "evolution" of the article is simply preposterous." Whoa! How did you manage to put so many mistakes in one sentence? As far as your context is concerned, there is no policy in Wikipedia requiring a discussion in advance of a change. Quite to the contrary, Wikipedia:Editing policy encourages bold editing. Violation of core policies and community consensus is simply not allowed, with or without a discussion. Second, yes, WP:EDITCONSENSUS is exactly and exclusively created to sanction what you call preposterous. In other words, if someone changes the article and no one contests him/her, in this case for four months, the change is said to have consensus. ViperSnake151's edit was not contested. Yours was. Fleet Command (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Except the relevant guideline here (WP:DATERET) says If an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the whole article should conform to it, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page and neither of those conditions was met (going under the radar for two months -- not four as you said -- doesn't qualify as consensus on the talk page). Even ViperSnake recognized his mistake and tried to turn it back Calidum T|C [7]. 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a point repeating what is already acknowledged by everyone and is agreed upon? WP:STICK.

I was just saying that a change that remains undisputed for four month over successive revisions is an evolution. You do know where the word "evolution" comes from, right? Fleet Command (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That is completely ridiculous. So according to your interpretation of the policy, I can just go around changing the established date formats in articles whenever I want, and as long as nobody notices or says anything for a few months, that becomes the new date format of the article? So what is even the point of having the policy that the date format the article started with is the date format the article should remain with if people can just completely ignore it and get away with it? Rreagan007 (talk) 05:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Rreagan007.

Why do you overexcite yourself, now that the article is in the state that you always wanted?

I hate to pile up on someone but what you call "ridiculous" is indeed part of the consensus policy. Actually, it is an important part too: It is one of the things that changed Nupedia into Wikipedia. Thousands of edits come in every day and the community does not have the luxury of holding a hoist-over-the-shoulder party for each. So, the legal principle of consensus from silence was adopted into our "Reaching consensus through editing" policy.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, as a courtesy, I am letting everyone participating in this discussion know that I fully intend to change the date formats on the Windows 7 and Windows 8 articles in the near future, as the exact same thing happened to the date formats in those articles as happened here. If anyone still wants to fight me over that, we can just go ahead and start a larger Request For Comment now, but I am confident that the issue will ultimately be decided in favor of reverting back to the date formats that the articles were started with. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

In that case, you would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. But as long as you adhere to the Wikipedia:Editing policy § Talking and editing and do not counter-revert when someone reverted you, that's fine with me.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is also Wikipedia:Ignore all rules which I could reference. I also do not consider reverting the date format to what the MoS says it should be is in any way disruptive, but we could go back and forth forever. Ultimately I will do what I think is right and I expect that you will do what you think is right. I just want you to know that our little disagreement over this point is nothing personal, however it ultimately turns out. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand any part of this message. —Codename Lisa (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

My point was merely that we can keep throwing Wikipedia policies and guidelines at each other all day, but ultimately you disagree with my good-faith interpretation of the rules and I disagree with your (I assume) good-faith interpretation of the rules. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. That's why I gave up when I did. I was planning to bring the interpretation issue in the Village Pump. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. I would like to hear what a broader sampling of editors think about this issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That "was" in CL's message is frightening. CL is very sensitive to correct language. So, that beckons the question that CL herself asks: Aren't you going to anymore? Fleet Command (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The amount reading required before doing so is daunting. This issue has roots that go deeper than the World Tree. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Way I see it, this 'could' be solved very easy. Its a Windows page --> which is Microsoft --> Which is american, why not just use American formatting? YY:MM:DD. If none can come to an agreement, then just pick one that makes sence. I vnever understood the MDY style anyway. Just my two cents 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Suggested section move (Windows 10 Version History)

I suggest moving the Windows 10 version history template and entire section to the article features new to Windows 10 as the version history contains ever changing new features and per WP:SIZERULE the large section would better fit in that smaller article. --58.187.162.7 (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Advertising language nonsense

The word "ecosystem" is used several times, which might seem "cute" but since computers have no ecosystem they need to be removed as un-encyclopedic except when quoting sources. How to replace its meaning? Suggest the words "user environment" or the like.Mydogtrouble (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand what you mean by "computers have no ecosystem"; the term is obviously referring to a Software ecosystem, which is frequently used within the realm of computing to refer to the overall range of software designed for a specific platform or operating system. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I agree with Viper here. Metaphors should be used carefully in Wikipedia but this one does seem to be carefully used. Also "environment" is the literal synonym of "ecosystem". Our friend MDT here is jumping from one metaphor to another.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

You are right.. You can get so used to e.g. "environment [variables]". "Sphere of influence" would just confuse people, and it is not round.. Not even sure what the best word/term would be. "[Network] Neighborhood" would not be good.. comp.arch (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

ZERO information about the DRAMATIC decision - Ability to run Android and iOS apps on Windows 10

There is, practically, ZERO information in that article about the DRAMATIC decision and ability to run Android and iOS apps on Windows 10. It can be sub-chapter of its own!, including sub-sub-chapters: apps (amount) battle and distress, dilemma, decision, different implementation options, chosen option, future implications... VERY IMPORTANT and wide topic! VirtuOZ (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your description of this as "dramatic" is a bit overdramatic: the Android apps are only for Windows 10 Mobile (and even that initiative seems to have been stalled). The iOS "compatibility" is actually a toolchain that supports Objective-C programming in Visual Studio. Universal Windows Platform already mentions this, as well as Windows 10 Mobile, though I may add a brief mention to it here. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, one, it's not a case of simply running an existing iOS or Android app, right off of the respective "store", on Windows 10. i.e. there would not be binary compatibility. The idea was to provde a way to make apps very easy to port via some sort of interface layer; the apps would likely have to be rebuilt. Furthermore the plans for this level of Android compatibility have been "put on hold".[8] This was only ever about Windows 10 Phone, not on desktop machines. And finally, Wikipedia is not a news organization; we don't cover every "announcement of intent". Jeh (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The DECISION (what I would but in bold), does not make for "ability" to run apps from on OS with a proprietary API. I would like to see proof that it works more or less in all cases (or even just a few..). Compare to: Wine [a project to run Windows applications on Linux, yes, the project didn't have deep pockets], officially entered beta [..] after 15 years of development." Microsoft has deep pockets, and when the tables are turned, it could maybe speed things up, a bit, but I doubt by many years. The Windows API was also big (I'm not sure how big iOS's is relatively), and a moving target.. This is the problem, not just supporting the programming language, e.g. Objective-C (or now Swift). As Objective-C has always had open source compilers, if that where the case, then you could port/recompile all iOS apps to Android without any problems.

I do not care much about a decision; the ABILITY, needs evidence/good sources. That is for running the programs as is. Theoretically, you can port any app from any OS to any other OS. Should an OS article mention it at all if tools to port (not run unchanged) that may work (in some cases) or not, can be had separately? comp.arch (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Ars is usually a good source. This from May 2015 may not be good enough: "The Windows 10 version of Candy Crush Saga was first demonstrated at Microsoft's Build conference earlier this month, and served as something of a showcase for Microsoft's Project Islandwood and Project Astoria initiatives. Islandwood allows iOS developers to bring their apps over to Windows via an Objective C toolchain and middleware layer. While some recompiling is still required, it should make the process of porting apps easier for a large number of iOS developers. Things are easier still for Android developers, with Windows Mobile including an Android runtime layer that'll let most existing apps run unmodified. Notably, the new Windows 10 version of Candy Crush Saga will include cross-play options for iOS and Android devices."

The source isn't mainly talking about "Project Islandwood and Project Astoria", but games. Games (excluding 3D), are trivial to port between operating systems. They only need to abstract the inputs, in the case from iOS touchscreen APIs to Windows' (in general keyboard, virtual or physical, may have been done here, joystick etc.), and output to full-screen (this is complicated with directx to others, less so for OpenGL that is shared by the operating systems, for 2D the game may use their own libraries and/or open source ones, and access to a framebuffer has trivial differences between operating systems).

What makes porting, say from Windows API to other operating system, is the massive rest of the API. The above example for a game, doesn't support, "allows iOS developers to bring their apps over to Windows", for general apps (e.g. non-game). Porting from Android should be easier as he says (because it's open source, and Microsoft could have reused the code), and still it seems they failed at supporting Android (or at least cancelled). If they gave up on Android, why would iOS be easier?

Even if porting works perfectly: "While some recompiling is still required", means technically that the operating system is in NO way compatible (given the CPUs are ARM in both cases), and the text on these projects are out of the scope of the article on an operating system (except ok for pointing to in "See also"). comp.arch (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead feels bloated

It reads long and feels like it front loads a bit too much info. I'm proposing here instead of BRD.

• Positive reception could probably be reduced to two sentences at the most.
• "‌although the browser was criticized for being a work in progress that was not yet feature complete." This should go on Edge more than here I think.
• The entire negative reception paragraph. This should be axed down to a sentence of bulletpoints and merged into the previous.

Thoughts? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I agree the title and with items #1 and #3 but not with #2. The latter is just for the sake of completeness. But the last two paragraphs are very wordy. In addition to what you said, I think Microsoft's phrases which deviate from the standard accepted meaning must not be covered in the lead at all. Especially, "operating system as a service" (which is not software as a service) does not appear anywhere in the body, thus must not be in the lead either.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Update: About item #2, actually I see it appearing twice in the lead. Once is nice but twice is not. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, who keeps removing the codenames?

Here's a list of articles on Wikipedia:

• Microsoft Windows XP
• Microsoft Windows Vista
• Microsoft Windows 7
• Microsoft Windows 8
• Microsoft Windows 8.1

Notice something? they literally all have the codenames in the lead and it was agreed upon not only in what is now the archive of this talk page, but on various other pages that we have the codename in the lead, so why do several editors keep removing it here? if this move was consistent I would've challenged it differently, but the move is never consistent, they only remove it from the Microsoft Windows 10 article and literally nowhere else, for some reason it keeps getting removed, and like most times when content from Wikipedia gets removed absolutely no justification is given, and usually when it gets reverted the editors who revert leave no comment on to why they remove the codename, just please leave the codename in, and if you want to challenge it take it to the talk page first.

Constantly removing the codename is nothing short from edit warring, and though there have been repeat offenders, the editors who remove and recover it are almost never the same, so can we please have a civilized discussion about it before we constantly do this? I'm sick of the fact that almost no editor on Wikipedia ever abides to WP:CIVIL especially the "veteran" editors who are nearly obsessed about reverting and reporting as opposed to actually giving reasons for their reversions, and so far I've seen the codename removed 5 times from what I've counted, Windows 10 Mobile doesn't need it because it's an edition of Windows 10, but Windows 10 itself does, doubt it? then read the linked pages above, and before commenting I suggest (re-)reading WP:CIVIL because it's obviously most people on this site lack.

PS

I don't accept as "reaction" on my personal talk page as a valid one to the discussion, often when editors try to push their edits they would rather go to the personal talk pages of the opposing editor than on the talk page of the article in question to justify their changes, if you have a reason why the codename should stay/be removed write it here, not on my talk page as I will immediately remove it from there, also a trend I've noticed (especially from "veteran" editors) is that they avoid the talk page altogether and never respond to counter arguments for their edits but are button-happy to revert the edits over, and over again, and would rather revert in a group so they could report you than engage in a discussion, so how is this relevant? Well I'm just saying what I don't expect, I want to include the codename in the introduction of the Windows 10 page and I expect (counter) arguments here on this talk page not my own, those posts will be immediately reverted. --58.187.228.2 (talk) 08:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My argument for including the codename is continuity, I won't protest if all codenames from all operating system pages get removed, but I do protest if somehow Windows 10 is the only page where it gets removed. --58.187.228.2 (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally, codenames are trivia in relation to Windows. They do not form portions of the final branding like on Android and OS X, are downplayed in favor of official branding (thus giving undue weight to often speculative assertions), and we already have an entire article full of Microsoft product codenames. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

My choice would be to remove codenames from the lead and mention them in the development section of the article only, or the appropriate "Development of..." page. pcuser42 (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Viper - Why only removed the codename for Windows 10? All the other Windows releases have their respective codenames in the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Professor123 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support codename inclusion. When Threshold 2, Redstone, or whatever came out, we will change the lead to "Codenames Threshold, Redstone, [...]". Furthermore, IMHO, the codename of the initial release is far more important that the codename of individual updates. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support inclusion of the codename, and agree with all above. NeoGeneric 💬  10:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:INDISCRIMINATE on all Windows articles. In the case of Windows, they are a trivial pseudonym only of interest to a specialized audience, and are not exposed to the public as part of final branding a la OS X and Android, nor are they acknowledged by Microsoft as codenames in certain circumstances ViperSnake151  Talk  15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well as opposing on all the OS articles. It's clear Microsoft employees are trying to own all the Microsoft articles and will fight like ferrets to keep doing so. It's a shame, too. Mydogtrouble (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. I read all of the above. The codename is part of the identity and so it is exactly that important; no more, but no less. I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE too. Codenames do not match its criteria. While sections titled "Trivia" are abysmal, there is no law again "trivia" itself, because it is a subjective word used in argumentum ad lapidem. Also "only of interest to a specialized audience" is untrue; there is no specialization needed to understand Windows Vista was called "Longhorn" during its development. (First, you should ask yourself "who would read a whole article called 'Windows Vista'?"). Last but not least, I am neither a fan of ad hominem nor conspiracy theory, so I won't dignify that message with a reply. Fleet Command (talk) 09:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support The codenames are not what I call 'ballast' (as in excessive weight) nor does it mean particulairly much more. Those who have the interest will like seeing the codename given, those who don't care aren't bothered by it and just read past it. Its only that little-small-puny group that feels like they have to prove some guideline and actually go ahead and make waves over this. Personally I don't care much for the codenames, but I don't mind them being included. And if it has significance (which evidently is not known by me) then by all means, include them. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support Codenames are something that have been a part of Windows development since before the Win95 days. It makes absolute sense to include the codename for Windows 10 as well, even if it's "continuously updated". Billybobjoe321 (talk) 00:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Codenames provide information on the development of the OS. And as Billybobjoe321 said above, even if it is changing for Windows 10, it should be listed. Along with the previous code names for it. MrEWhite (talk) 04:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This is important information, especially since Windows 10 as much of the community has started to refer to major updates just by their codenames: instead of saying "November Update", the say "Threshold 2". "Redstone" is for now also the only sensible name there is for the version that is currently in development, so how again is this "trivia". --YannickFran (talk) 20:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support These codenames are official and fairly notable, and many of the Windows community may refer to Windows versions by their code names. Also, Little Boy and Fat Man were two codenames each of two famous bombs dropped on Japan, yet do we omit those two codenames each from their articles? No. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Split Windows 10 and Windows 10 for PC

Currently the Windows 10 article talks about the Windows 10 family of operating systems and Windows 10 for PC (or Desktop) This creates confusion. I suggest to split the page into Windows 10 and Windows 10 for PC or Windows 10 Desktop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.89.217 (talk) 11:47, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't see anything a family or something like that. Mind if you show me? (Some quotation would do it.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Basically, Microsoft confuses people as they also call Windows 10 to Windows 10 Mobile. See: https://www.microsoft.com/en/mobile/windows10/ That is why I think a page talking about the different "Windows 10" operating systems is a good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.154.143 (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Do either of you IP editors realize Windows 10 has an article that has brief descriptions of all its editions and that the PC version and the mobile version each have their own articles? Qpalzmmzlapq (talk | contribs) 21:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If this article is not a family/umbrella article, at least also, then does ARM belong in the infobox? I believe ARM is only supported on the mobile version (and IoT Core, that blurs the line with desktop..), but not for "PCs". I might just be wrong. I wouldn't say this article needs to be only about PCs, can go either way. comp.arch (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

However, there is no Windows 10 IoT (Windows 10 IoT Enterprise, Windows 10 IoT Mobile Enterprise, Windows 10 IoT Core, Windows 10 IoT Core Pro) statements regarding.--101.102.136.166 (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose – it is fine the way it is. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 14:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Every non-P.C. version of Windows 10 including Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows 10 Internet of Things already have their own respective articles, and the current navigation box is fine at differentiating between them. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

WinBeta

Here is a quick yes-or-no question: "Is WinBeta a reliable secondary source?". Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 01:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

You mean winbeta.org? I wouldn't think so. It's one of seemingly thousands of tech blog sites. I see no clear evidence of editorial oversight, for example; the articles seem to amount to being self-published. Jeh (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

How about ZDNet? Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Depends on what the content is. You should probably read WP:RS in detail. Jeh (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Gff365: Hi. ZDNet has many writers and editors. Ed Bott and Adrian Kingsley-Hugh are 99% of times okay. Mary Jo Foley is only 2% of times okay. She writes rumors, which is forbidden in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that it probably matters much, but some rumor and speculation is allowed, if it's properly sourced and attributed in-text (and isn't written by some fringe theorist). However, for the most part, Codename Lisa is right, that generally we prefer to stay as far away from it as much as possible! --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

WinBeta often includes articles that aren't rumours, I'm not sure why WinBeta is "a tech blog" while ZDNet is "a news-site", they can both report in exactly the same thing in exactly the same way, it would seem like a peculiar double standard if the content of both would amount to the same.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! You need to learn a lot! —Codename Lisa (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a particular citation to WinBeta in question? Here's my opinion (please do read policies but) I would (and do) use whatever source (any is better than none) to objective facts, that you can find (but you may try to find a better one at least to confirm) [for computer related articles]. Computers are good in that way, either they do run software [with that result] or not. Beta software is in a sense released software, but may not be noteworthy. WP:RS is a club other users can use to revert you if you are wrong. Please do not use it to often.. [I got reverted at one point, with a register.co.uk source (that was true).] comp.arch (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Yet ZDnet has alleged inherent notability just because it is a division of CBS Interactive, as we are to disclose in all citations to said properties. That's the double standard. Just because you can slap a reputable looking name in |publisher= doesn't automatically imply reliability. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:37, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

That's wildly false. I already said "Mary Jo Foley is only 2% of times okay". There is nothing inherently good about CBS Interactive. If anything, Seth Rosenblatt is an example 100% of times unreliable editor. He just praised every Tom, Dick and Harry's software all the times. But ZDNet does have good writers like Adrian Kingsley-Hugh and Ed Bott.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Denial of explicit anchors

The initial revert was because the new headings did not easily "faciliate incoming links". The explicit anchors were meant to address this, as you can link to them like you do a heading (Windows 10#th2). ViperSnake151  Talk  00:02, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

@FleetCommand: This concerns you.

@ViperSnake151: You are assuming way too much.

First, you are assuming that there was a revert at all. Maybe FC just hit the edit button and did something that you count as a revert. (In this case, you should have thought twice before countering a revert so fiercely.)

Second, you are trying to solve someone's problem without knowing what the problem is. Facilitate which incoming links? Are there incoming links already or does FC intend to make some? (If there are existing ones already, your anchors wouldn't heal them.) Or is it just because the headings seemed way too awkward and "facilitate incoming link" was just an example meant to demonstrate why they are awkward?

If you have answer to these, I am eager to hear.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151 and Codename Lisa: I only wanted to make things simpler. ViperSnake151 did exactly the opposite; he made them complex, and then more complex in response to me wanting them simpler. I don't know what message '"Threshold"' in headings gives that 'Threshold' alone doesn't. Reading an article shouldn't be like a bumpy ride. Fleet Command (talk) 08:24, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Multi-touch display is a minimum requirement?

Hi.

I would like to hear the justification for considering "multi-touch display" the minimum Windows 10 requirement. I disagree but I'd like to hear it anyway.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It isn't listed as one. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

It says keyboard and mouse or a multi-touch display. Tablet devices meet minimum specifications too, and they typically do not ship with a keyboard or mouse. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: As far as the source is concerned, "multi-touch display" is part of "Additional requirements to use certain features".

You should distinguish between a tablet's minimum requirements vs. Windows 10's. Tablets don't come with a mouse and keyboard; they go above and beyond the Windows 10's minimum requirements to reach a goal, i.e. being a tablet. A touch screen is the tablet's minimum requirement, but not Windows 10's. Actually, I see no input requirements in the source at all. I wonder where this 1024×768 screen requirement and 4 GB RAM has come from.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Multiple version numbers in the infobox?

There is currently a discussion of whether Template:Infobox OS should be used with multiple version numbers - for example, to list both a "software update" and "next major release" beta, or to list betas from more than one release stream. If you believe that multiple {stable, preview} releases should never appear in that infobox, or if you believe that they should appear under some or all circumstances where there's more than one beta of the OS in question available, you might want to comment there. (I have no strong belief either way; I'm OK with the main OS page listing only the "next major release" beta, but listing betas from multiple streams if they exist, but I'd also be OK with other choices.) Guy Harris (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Removed features" section be split into a new article?

The consensus is against splitting the "Removed features" section into a new article called "List of features removed in Windows 10". Editors said the section was not large enough per WP:SIZERULE for a split. Cunard (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the "Removed features" section be split into a new article called "List of features removed in Windows 10", given that the section is long enough and the existence of similar articles for Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, and Windows 8? 63.251.215.25 (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

• Why is this an entire RFC? You could have just used {{Split}}, or alternatively, actually registered and do it yourself. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:SIZERULE. That section is still not large enough. First, one has to prove that it can be that large. Then, and only then, the split can happen. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. Definitely too small, there's no point creating a stub for this, it's perfectly justifiable to keep in the article also. KieranTribe 14:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: the current section could plausibly be size-split, even though the article is not that long and the split would be quite short. But that is not a fantastic target for a split anyways. I think the "reception" section is lower-hanging fruit in terms of split, for instance. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 18:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose: As per above, plus, a greater need is to format the section as a list of items (possibly a hidden list to be clicked on by interested parties without wasting the time of uninterested readers). JonRichfield (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Windows 10 EOL dates are confusing

My attempt to clarify the EOL dates in the infobox was reverted by @Codename Lisa.

I made the edit because of this question on the reference desk. I've seen a similar question at least once before. It's clear that the text confuses people as it stands. Microsoft actually says "Windows 10, released in July 2015**" on their lifecycle page, and the ** links to a lengthy footnote, presumably to avoid confusion. If this article were named "Windows 10, released in July 2015", we could just state the EOL of that. But it's about "Windows 10", and if we don't clarify what those dates mean, people will misunderstand.

I did change the formatting because the old formatting didn't work well with the clarification. (Adding it to the second bullet point would make it seem not to apply to the first.) But that isn't important, and if you want to format it some other way that's fine. -- BenRG (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, BenRG

I've seen your edit, this discussion, that discussion, and yet it is still unclear to me: How does writing "applies to original July 2015 release only" clarifies anything? If you don't give them another set of dates that applies to another release, they still get confused the other way. They'd think "I see twelve releases in the release history, so this article owes me twelve set of dates!"

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding which release the support date applies to reduces confusion, because without it it seems as if the 2020 date applies to every release (which it doesn't), not just the first one. pcuser42 (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

It does! It applies to all Windows 10 releases to this date. So, it is no confusion at all. It is correct understanding.

Actually, I think you are feeling obliged to tell people "Don't worry though, this support date will be extended in the future." But I don't think you should because I don't think it is true. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

@BenRG: Hello again. It seems you are getting part of what you want: Microsoft has announced a new date and I added it to the infobox. The bad news is that this date applies to LTSB editions only. Ouch. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

End of support for Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB for version 1607

Support for Windows 10 Home and Windows 10 Pro ends in October 2025. But according to an article posted on Computerworld.com, the Enterprise Long Term Servicing Branch (LTSB) support for the Anniversary Update (version 1607) ends on October 13, 2026. How would we reflect that in the infobox under "Support status"? —MRD2014 T C 17:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I just did. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Thank you. —MRD2014 T C 14:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hidding major issues

ViperSnake151 (talk) Could you explain why you are removing major issues references, ignoring the need to have a neutral point of view? 79.70.158.5 (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticisms section

I put in the following subsection (under Reception, just before the part about privacy), and it was removed by someone who says these are either by design or are mentioned elsewhere. I don't agree that those are sufficient reasons to delete this subsection. People want to know what criticisms have been made, or are being made, so it's proper to have a labeled section on the subject. It's good to have all the information consolidated in one place which concentrates on the subject of criticisms, rather than just mentioning them here and there in other discussions. And even if some of these things are by design, Microsoft is still being criticized for them!

Criticisms

Users have encountered a number of problems and bugs in Windows 10. Issues include:

• Updates are installed (for some users) without asking the user, and the computer may reboot, closing all applications.
• The Settings app does not include all settings. Some are under Control Panel.
• Drivers are installed by Microsoft in place of drivers installed by the user.
• System Restore is turned off by default.
• Popular games such as Solitaire have been removed. Task Manager has lost functionality.
• Many users have reported high use of resources by a program called "System and compressed memory" or high disk usage for various reasons.

References

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:33, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

All of these details are already mentioned, poorly-sourced, or sourced to invalid sources (Reddit is a forum). Criticism sections are a non-neutral article construct and should be avoided. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen: Hi. Perusing the list, there are a couple of things that comes to mind:

1. If such a section was indeed added to the article, it clearly breaks the article's existing style. It is very natural for editors to expect all contribution not to lower the article quality. The article already has a reception section. Items #1 and #3 are already under the §"Update system changes" in the article while item #2 is already in §"User interface and desktop".
2. Content without source may be challenged and deleted. Most of these don't have a source. There is no reason to even believe they are real.
3. Who has criticized Windows 10 as such? Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information. Criticism must come from someone worth listening to.
4. The last item is too vague. Some people always complain about their computers regardless of what operating system they install. This case has nothing distinct to make it Windows 10's fault.

The essay Wikipedia:Criticism has good material on writing good criticism in Wikipedia.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Criticism says articles must present differing viewpoints on the subject matter fairly, proportionately, and without bias. I think what I wrote does exactly that, whereas the article without my edit does not seem fair. Wikipedia:Criticism goes on to say that articles should include both positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources, without giving undue weight to particular viewpoints, either negative or positive. Without my edit, there was very little in the way of a negative viewpoint. What I wrote is supported by reliable sources. I don't think you can reasonably claim that the things listed in my first reference are not true, nor that all the people complaining in my second two references are making it up.

It's true that the section "Update system changes" says that Windows 10 does updates whether you want them or not, but it doesn't mention the fact that it reboots your computer in the middle of the night, closing all your programs and causing you to lose your work if you didn't save. That section does mention that forced installation of drivers "could cause conflicts" with drivers that were previously installed. (It's not that they could cause conflict, it's that they simply override the other drivers!) But there's nothing wrong with mentioning this issue again in a list of criticisms.

The point about Settings is not (as mentioned in the "User interface and desktop" section) that it now includes more things than before. The point is that it does not include all the settings, not even all the settings that you may very well want to change.

You seem to imply that discontented users are not "someone worth listening to".

The points about "System and compressed memory" and disk usage are not vague. That program is specific to Windows (I think it's new in Windows 10), and it's causing problems for lots of people. Having a disk that's being used 100% all the time even when you're not really doing anything on your computer is also not a vague, general problem that occurs with all computers and all operating systems.

In any case, I'm not interested in simply improving the sections you mention. I want a section on Criticisms, so that people can find out what is being criticized without having to read through the whole long article. If you think it needs improvement, then improve it instead of deleting it. As for breaking the article's existing style, if the existing style gives the impression that Windows 10 is a great improvement, with a couple little things that some people don't like, then let's break the style.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this defense tirade matters. Wikipedia wants articles, not text mush, and it needs team workers, not hit-and-run mad-lib writers. So, as long as your contribution is analogous to throwing a crate full of garbage in the middle of a courtyard, make no mistake, people will revert you.

If you changed your mind and decided to work with your fellow editors to fix the problem and address your concern, I'll drop by.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It's perhaps late, but I would like to join into the conversation. Mainly to say that many of these points aren't related to Windows 10. System Restore for example was already turned of by default since Windows 8 due to the addition to Reset and Refresh. Solitaire is in fact added in Windows 10 after it was removed by default in Windows 8 and that process was a driver issue, and had nothing to do with Windows itself. Furthermore, the update process is still the same as any other default Windows installation (for that matter, so is the driver "issue") and Windows will never reboot without an users concent. If it does, the user was warned beforehand. Additionally, the Control Panel doesn't have all settings available either, and that has been the case ever since it was introduced 25 years ago. I'm writing this down here just to indicate that much of this "criticism" really isn't criticism but journos that got their facts wrong. --YannickFran (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm also confused, Task Manager has not lost any usability. They added a "non technical, normal user that don't know what all the stuff is" version of Task Manager. that shows running Applications only. If you hit the "More Details" button at the bottom of the plain version of Task Manager, Users will get the "full" version of Task manager. The thing that has been lost from Windows XP since Windows 7 is the ability to control Shutdown/Sign out options. So my big thing is Keep out Task Manager from criticism section.(if made.) Because it's not removed. Dre~ (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Deinstalling

windows 10 deinstalled multiple antivirus from multiple computers (a lot of these could be re-installed right away, as they're compatible). It also deinstalled windows shell classic, speccy, CPU-Z, SmartFTP, and AMD Catalyst Control Center.

For instance, windows shell classic can just be reinstalled if you rename the installer, and it works flawlessly. This is not a case of windows 10 having incompatibility, it's a case of microsoft wanting users to try the forced bundle cortana->edge->bing. It will also remove google from the web search in the start menu for those who put it there previously, and prevent putting it back.

Can someone add that info and make a citation? I don't know how to make a citation link. That sort of info is pretty much all over the news and easily googlable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.134.86 (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

This is done to avoid having software that doesn't work on the platform as far as I know, as complaints do not get addressed to the software maker, but Microsoft instead. Report false positives on the Feedback Hub or via other feedback channels. Athens ms (talk) 16:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding arm and arm64 as supported platforms

Hi, I'm wondering can we add arm and arm64 as supported platforms, since they are supported but are very limited.

A user did it here but it got reverted here

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10&type=revision&diff=745529536&oldid=745522221

I'm wondering why since the user did explain it.

Paladox (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Paladox

Do you have a source to support this? With a source, you will have no problems adding them.

It is worthy of note however, that your link to ARM was incorrect. You should have checked to see if it was the article you really want to link to.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry it has been done now :), another user did it Paladox (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Concept image under Development

I accepted this revision in which a user added a "concept image" of Windows 10. I'm not really confident it adds anything to the article that the image in the infobox doesn't already, but technically the edit was OK so I accepted it. If someone else sees this and feels that the image is out of place, feel free to remove it. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 05:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

How many updates are named Redstone??

I thought there were 3, as in the sequence Redstone 1, 2, 3. But this article says there are 4. Any official info?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, the vast majority of results on a Google search for "Redstone 4" are talking about Mercury-Redstone 4, not a Windows 10 update with the codename "Redstone 4". Any official info on Redstone 4?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Georgia guy

Found this: http://news.softpedia.com/news/microsoft-could-launch-windows-10-redstone-4-in-early-2018-510044.shtml

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Programming languages: Vandalism or good-faith?

Hey.

I just noticed a revert in this article about the programming languages. The reverted contribution is so ... tragic ... that I would like to ask your opinion as to whether it was vandalism.

The edit adds the following to infobox:

C, C#, C++.NET, Metro

References

The problem with this edit is:

• [[C]] and [[Metro]] aren't programming languages
• "C", "C++.NET" and "Metro" don't even appear in the given sources
• Both of the sources are already in our unreliable source blacklists
• Neither of the sources even come close to addressing the question of Windows 10 programming languages
  • The first source is an answer from a guy who wrote about his own favorite programming languages
  • The second source predates Windows 10 by five years!

I myself think that either this edit is sneaky vandalism by Erkinalp9035 or it is done in good faith but Erkinalp9035 doesn't have the competence to edit Wikipedia. What do you think?

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I acted in good faith. It is well known Windows 10 source code also includes source code from Windows 8 due to Microsoft's conservative compatibility. However, if I made a mistake, I admit it. C++.NET is Microsoft's own and only dialect of C++ they have a compiler for. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Paragraph break in your signature tricked me. Sorry. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

PMFJI, FleetCommand... but how on earth is [[C]] not a programming language? And if it isn't, what is it that I've been writing Windows drivers in for 20 years? Granted the Wikilink should be to [[C (programming language)]]. Jeh (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

License

I noticed that none of the licenses listed in the infobox are actually licenses. Isn't this operating system distributed under some kind of EULA? 159.83.54.2 (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Telemetry

Is this source any good for inclusion in the article?

• Bright, Peter (5 April 2017). "Microsoft opens up on Windows telemetry, tells us most of what data it collects". Ars Technica. Condé Nast.

5.223.9.36 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Creators Update

Can anyone add the Creators Update's dates to the bottom of the infobox in this article?? Georgia guy (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! :) If I am not mistaken, the LTSB for Creators Update won't be released any time soon. Actually, lateness is the point of LTSB. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

What does LTSB stand for and what distinguishes LTSB from the regular version?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

LTSB stands for "Long Term Servicing Branch". LTSB still adheres to the traditional Microsoft support policy of five-years mainstream support and five-years extended support. The only LTSB edition is the Enterprise LTSB edition, which is the poorest edition in terms of features.

In case of regular editions, only the latest version is supported, for as long as it is the latest version. Microsoft likes to put it this way: Your Windows 10 device is supported as long as you keep it updated.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Because I work on embedded systems a lot, the Long Term Servicing Branch is of special interest to me. A PC that controls a robot on a factory floor or assists a surgeon during an operation really does not need to have the system stop working while Windows updates Cortana. Alas, while I can use the LTSB version at work, the last time I checked I would have to pay some big bucks for a volume licensing agreement to legally use it at home. I have heard rumors about a fairly cheap (a hundred bucks a year or so) way to get a subscription that allows me to run Windows 10 Enterprise LTSB, but nothing solid. If such a thing actually exists it would be a great addition to this article if we could document it. Codename Lisa, you are usually right on top of this sort of thing. Does such a subscription offer exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, your best option for the buck here is to get another edition and then ignore or otherwise disable features that are not available in Enterprise LTSB... assuming you are not open to traveling the grey area and resorting to the fair-use law. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10 names

Just to make it clear, we're going right ahead and ignoring WP:COMMONNAME? And to add to that we're just creating confusion by blatantly ignoring the established naming scheme in Windows 10 version history? WikIan -(talk) 05:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

As an uninvolved editor (in this dispute, not in this article) I am comfortable with both. Codenames are common too. What I specifically hate is changes that break backlinks.

—Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Windows [10] market share

About my edit that was reverted. The usage share StatCounter gives is low, and gives an upper bound on Windows 10 usage share (they broke down by versions previously, but no longer do for Windows; never did for e.g. Android).

I and they find it interesting that Windows as a whole is now under usage of Android; enough that they made a press release on it. At least the wording of my latter edit, seems not to violate WP:NOTSTAT. In fact only showing desktop numbers (Windows claims to support all platforms by now..) that look better, seems WP:NPOV. comp.arch (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Not even one section with word "Controversies" in the title, what the hell?

Windows 10 invasive spying and data collection and control wrested and held AWAY from users is monumentally documented out there endless in the news and blogs, etc. How can there be nothing but a footnote of a mention here and at that it is even quite tamed and neutralized with regards to MS's severity and audacity..... Nothing at all damning of condemnatory whatsoever, has Microsoft bent this article to paint Win10 in a light that is quite undeservedly harmless and seemingly neutral??? CLEARLY. Sinsearach (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sinsearach: There is a whole article called criticism of Windows 10 and this article has a "Reception" section.

You didn't read the article beyond looking at its title, did you? —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Wait... What? We are supposed to actually read the articles before complaining about them? :( --Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did see that and that doesnt even begin to scratch the surface, its a footnote at best, but nothing but empty & neutral language.Sinsearach (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, well, you should have complained about not scratching the surface in the first place, instead of complaining about it not being there altogether. Because now, you have lost credibility. I don't believe for a moment that you have looked at the article, let alone analyzed it and found it inadequate.

I tell you what: Pay me a hefty sum and I will write the kind of section you love to see. Of course, I am not saying I put it in Wikipedia. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Establishing Consensus

My goal is to unified the names used in this article here with the ones used in Windows 10 update history. I believe we should be using WP:COMMONNAME and not utilizing the codenames. (Does the Windows 8 article utilize Jupiter in its headings No.) Of course I will check the backlinks using What links here to satisfy User:Codename Lisa. WikIan -(talk) 14:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I fully support this idea. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Removed Features should be its own wiki page and not part of the overview

It should follow the idea of the new features page, where the page is in a dedicated wiki page, the features removed section should be its wiki as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialDanny123 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10 and antivirus software

An IP (2.97.238.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently tried to add the following text:

Windows 10, unlike previous versions, is incompatible with 3rd party antivirus software.

I rejected the change (article is SP'd). Another IP (79.70.131.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempted to re-revert, asking in edit summary, "Could you please fix the contribution instead of just removing it?" Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) rejected that re-revert.

The two IPs may be the same person as they both Geolocate to the Newscastle-upon-Tyne area of the UK. It therefore seems pointless to leave messages on either talk pages, so I will use this space to comment:

I don't know how to "fix the contribution" when the key claim of the contribution is: "Windows 10, [...] is incompatible with 3rd party antivirus software" when there are enough antivirus programs for Windows 10 to fill "top 10" lists. The reference to the Inquirer is useless; we don't accept the Inquirer as a RS. Even the techspot ref doesn't directly support the claim. It just supports the claim that Kaspersky is making the claim. And that would seem to be more a topic for an article about Kaspersky than an article about Windows 10. Jeh (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

References

It could be argued that Microsoft Targeted by Kaspersky Antitrust Complaint to EU is an acceptable source and that the issues it brings up are worth at least a mention. Of course it could also be argued that they are not worth a mention. I am neutral on this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The only thing we can support with these references is that Kaspersky is claiming that their AV product was disabled by a specific version update to Windows 10. As I said previously, the blanket claim "that Windows 10 disables 3rd party antivirus software in favor of Windows Defender" (from the IP's third attempt, under a third IP; leaving messages on their talk pages will obviously be useless) is not at all supported. Just because it was in an "Inquirer" headline doesn't make it true. In fact that is often a pretty good indication that the truth is, um, far less sensational.

To the IP (or IPs): Please read WP:BRD. We are now at the Discuss stage. No more editing the article, please, until a consensus is reached that supports your change. Jeh (talk) 00:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

These sources only say what Kaspersky says. Unless and until reliable sources verify Kaspersky's claims, we can't state this as if it were truth. I would be fine with mentioning that Kaspersky made this allegation, but not more.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, hindering Kaspersky is not the same as being incompatible with 3rd-party antivirus software as a whole.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Kaspersky's actual claim is that Microsoft removes Kaspersky Antivirus from users' PCs when they upgrade to Windows 10 -- replacing it with Windows Defender -- and that Microsoft doesn't give third-party antivirus developers enough time to update their software ahead of rolling out new versions of Windows 10.

As an off-topic side comment, my advice in not to upgrade to Windows 10 or any other version of Windows. Back up your data, do a fresh install to an unformatted disk, then re-install all of your applications with the latest versions. You will have far fewer problems if you do it my way. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

There are other antivirus users and vendors making similar claims.

• Windows Defender suggests that you disable ESET in Windows 10
• Why Antivirus software is gone after windows update?
• "The update has also caused a number of popular free antivirus packages to be completely removed from end-user systems, including Avira, Avast!, and AVG."
• Creators Update - blocking Symantec antivirus app

--Guy Macon (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned it on the Criticism of Windows 10 page with a more accurate explanation. ViperSnake151  Talk  06:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Time for split?

Do you believe that this article has enough content to WP:SPLIT? Much like macOS, Windows is now a service, meaning this article will simply keep getting larger. If it is broken down into each release, it may be an easier read. WikIan -(talk) 01:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

For once, I think your judgment is sounds. The readable prose size is now 68 kB! (See WP:SIZERULE) The trouble is, the correct splitting is already done: We already have Features new to Windows 10, Windows 10 editions and Windows 10 version history but §Features and §Removed features, §Editions and pricing and §Updates and support sections are enormous and too detailed. For the start, we can create the Features removed from Windows 10 article. Also, we can trim these enormous sections. We don't even need to breakdown new features by feature packs.

Unlike macOS, Windows 10 is not a sub-family of Windows. In October 2020, Windows 10 will die an ignoble death and no more feature packs will come. (Off the record, I seriously hope and suspect that Microsoft has other plans, but so far as the spirit of an encyclopedia writer is concerned, all our information point to the grim outcome that I said.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Contributions by FT2 reverted

Hello

Today, I reviewed a batch of five edits by FT2. I feel I am obliged to write a more extensive explanation of why I did this, than the edit summary window permits. The contributions had largely moved the contents around and hadn't altered them significantly.

The biggest problem with the contribution was the unwieldy table it had fit into the article. This table didn't fit well on my massive full HD display. To make matter worst, I had the form of a change log and added the misleading "At initial release" section.

Without enough justification, two additional layer of section heading had been added to the article. The result was no significantly better navigation. On the contrary, it now constrained the table of contents.

Last but not least, some section names had become German. There is no mandate for a section name to be as descriptive or informative as a whole paragraph.

Overall, what had was moving the contents around, with no significant improvements.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

SMB1 in the Fall Creators Update

Hello

Today I reverted revision 790493587 by BeemoZaslavskiMalvar (Hello! Are you reading this?) because I found the following problems with it:

1. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL: It is too soon to have a section on what is removed from the Fall Creators Update. Already, I am seeing conflicting reports. The source that BeemoZaslavskiMalvar cited says something to effect that "the end is nigh!" But what I am reading on Feedback Hub apps says Windows 10 will only stop the SMB1 server and will still be able to browser old computers with SMB1 servers. I would like to remain you of the latest precedent: Do you people remember Paint 3D? During the beta of Creators Update, a couple of our esteemed colleagues insisted that it would replace Microsoft Paint. I said we couldn't be sure until it did. And I was right: It never did. The bottom line is: WP:CRYSTAL is a fundamental policy. There is no policy overriding it.
2. Misleading: A configuration change is not a feature removal. The source given has sneaky wording: "Windows 10 RS3 [...] have SMB1 uninstalled by default under most circumstances." So, there are circumstance in which the feature is not removed! Apart from that, we all know what "uninstalling feature" means in Windows Vista and later: The feature stays put but is just disabled.
3. Changing headings: And here we go again; this controversial topic that needs consensus...

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

New features

Should these be excluded since Wikipedia is not a changelog? --59.153.234.61 (talk) 05:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you ever seen a change log in your entire life? —Codename Lisa (talk) 06:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-Annual Channel?

Hello

I just reverted revision 792697466 by Ancheta Wis because it lacked context (was trivia) and, for something written by an admin, its was crap.

Fortunately, googling "Semi-Annual Channel" was fruitful. But my question is: Must I rewrite it by giving it context?

The core problem with it is that Microsoft can serve as a great example as to why we have the WP:CRYSTAL policy. I have enough precedents in Wikipedia for when we ignored WP:CRYSTAL and wrote something about the future, only to see Microsoft changing its plans.

I want to know everyone's opinion, including Ancheta Wis's.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

My post attempted to communicate what I believe is an admirable goal by Microsoft, namely by stabilizing its product quality by synchronizing releases of Windows 10 & Office. By first communicating the expectation, and then by adhering to this expectation, we can gain more confidence in those products and their mooted quality. I believe in the wiki process and welcome the stream of changes in its articles. Thus the process of setting expectations together with a "time to go" for a change (in this case 6 months) is realistic and doable. Such a process also smokes out vaporware, which reflects on announcements by people who never deliver. Their reputation thus suffers, if we record what they said and when they said it would happen, in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

All the love and appreciation of Microsoft in your message notwithstanding, this company has a history of changing course on many occasions, e.g. Windows Vista. It is the second most prevalent thing that it does. (The first most prevalent thing is changing the product names.) That's for WP:CRYSTAL. In addition, there is WP:NOTNEWS. This decision does not have any intrinsic due weight unless demonstrated in action. I don't see how (and strongly disagree that) "synchronizing releases of Windows 10 & Office" could possibly lead to "stabilizing its product quality". If anything, enforcing extra arbitrary deadlines like this can only pressure developers and lead to poor quality. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

"Prevalent thing"? There are a lot of far more prevalent things that Microsoft does: e.g. making software, earning money, launching advertisement campaigns, releasing updates, creating support articles. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If I started to argue this point, this discussion would be hijacked. So, how about this: I'll strike it out and we don't discuss it. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:20, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

About driver problems

Is this revert for sure good? I only added trans-title= and wouldn't have added the text myself, but hesitated with dropping it.

[ Linux kernel famously doesn't have a stable driver API, by design. ] Windows and macOS however do(?), supposedly. I didn't look into this issue specifically, but is this for sure a driver/vendor problem (plausible)? And/or a problem created by Microsoft, with them breaking the API. They do sometimes upgrade the driver API (and keep at least some old interfaces). comp.arch (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Rolling release? Doubt it

Hello.

I am writing this to explain why I contested the revision 808137440] by Myconix. (Hi, Myconix; I hope you are reading this.) The revision states that Windows 10 is a rolling release. I disagree.

From the rolling release article:

In software development, a rolling release, rolling update, or continuous delivery is the concept of frequently delivering updates to applications. This is in contrast to a standard or point release development model which uses software versions that must be reinstalled over the previous version.

[...]

A rolling release is typically implemented using small and frequent updates. However, simply having updates does not automatically mean that a piece of software is using a rolling release cycle; for this, the philosophy of developers must be to work with one code branch, versus discrete versions.

As such, Windows 10 release model is the opposite of this: Upgrades (e.g. version 1709) are full OS images, installed over the previous version. Each time, a full upgrade operation occurs, comparable to e.g. upgrading Windows Vista to Windows 7. The updates are also cumulative. They were not so, prior to Windows 8.1.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Credential Guard

The primary purpose of credential guard is to protect domain credentials. Credential guard is an additional layer of security that was added in Windows 10 version 1507 and 1511. It does have four system prerequisites, 64 bit CPU, unified extensible firmware interface (UEFI) version2.3.1 or greater with secure boot, trusted platform module version 2, and the client must be integrated into a domain. There are also additional virtualization requirements such as Windows hypervisor support. (Sorry for the limited paragraph here. The reason I brought this up is because my customer requires credential guard and I was surprised the Windows 10 article did not mention it.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.248.3.252 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Trivia: Win 10 most popular in one (two?) countries.

http://gs.statcounter.com/press/windows-10-overtakes-8.1-for-first-time-globally

http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-os-na-monthly-201601-201601-map In Saint Vincent and Grenadines Win10 is ranked first at 29.91%[9] –that share could be up to 30.807 people.. (also in some country in Europe, or possibly only region; I ruled out Åland Islands[10]). My own small, not this small, island country is also geting close to Win10 majority). These are all of course desktop numbers only, otherwise Windows doesn't have a change.

OS X is also ranked first somewhere in NA (I just can't locate.. even w/zooming).

Depreciated/Removed features on Windows 10

I have a suggestion, make a separate page for removed and depreciate features of Windows 10.

The ARM64 platform again

Hello, guys.

FleetCommand just contacted me and reported that three updates for Windows 10 on ARM64-based devices have showed up on his WSUS dashboard:

• 2017-10 Cumulative Update for Windows 10 Version 1709 for ARM64-based Systems (KB4043961)
• 2017-11 Cumulative Update for Windows 10 Version 1709 for ARM64-based Systems (KB4048955)
• Security Update for Adobe Flash Player for Windows 10 Version 1709 for ARM64-based Systems (KB4048951)

Remember how some people added "ARM" to the platform list of the article and we kept reverting them? Well, I don't think we should do that again.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi again.

Ars Technica just announced Windows 10 computers with ARM CPUs. So, I added ARM64 to the article.

I've included one of the above to show that the platform is ARM64, not just every ARM.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Hello, guys"? Aren't there any other girls here? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am the only Guy here. :)   -Guy Macon (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticisms

Could we have a section on criticisms? I find that Windows 10 is the worst version of Windows I have ever had, in many ways. I would like to know what others think, but there's no section on that in the article. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows 10 is linked already. Did you read the article? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Why read when you can complain? Warren -talk- 17:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have looked at that article. (By the way, it doesn't mention the things that I find so bad.) But little of that is mentioned in this article. I think it should be summarized here. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place for things you think are bad or for things I think are bad. You need a reliable source, not your personal opinion. See WP:OR and WP:RS.

Also, Windows 10#Reception is fine the way it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Eric, Wikipedia is not interested in your opinions or experiences on the subject of an article, either in the article itself or on the talk page. People tend to get riled up about various elements of Windows 10, but it's really important to not use that as the motivating factor for proposing contributions. Imagine doing that on a biography article of a comedian? "This guy is really not funny at all! His article should say that!" Wikipedia would have shut down years ago if such things were allowed. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is really clear on this and I encourage you to review that policy before continuing down this path. Warren -talk- 17:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Support status, confusion?

With the Windows 10 main article stating that mainstream support will last to 2020 and extended to 2025 why then isn't it listed on the Microsoft official site here: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/13853/windows-lifecycle-fact-sheet and there are reports that Microsoft will continue adding new features after 2020 according to the web. Could someone confirm this? I think its an rolling release-like because of the Windows as a service but need confirmation since they're not clear on this. OmegaDOS 16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, OmegaDOS

For support start dates and end dates, you must always visit support.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle. If you search "Windows 10" there, you will end up in a table that tells you exactly when the Windows 10 mainstream and extended support ends. As you can see in this first entry, "Windows 10 (Enterprise, Education, Pro, Pro for Workstation, IoT, Home)", the extended support period ends in 10 October 2025. In the past, this table used to have a mainstream support end date of 10 October 2020 too. (That's where ZDNet has got its report.) But right now, it does not. Instead, the note section says: "Microsoft will continue to support at least one Windows 10 Semi-Annual Channel until the extended support date of October 14, 2025."

So, yes, Microsoft is saying that it will release feature updates until 2025.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

So after 2025 then Microsoft will no longer do updates like adding new features or security updates for the system then? Will they release a new operating system after then or not or is this particular system thee last operating system done by them. OmegaDOS 18:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nobody knows. Probably not even Microsoft. Seven years is a long time after all; they have time to make a decision. Of course, I am yet to see someone optimistic.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

multiple partitions on removable disks

It could be worth noting that since version 1703, the file explorer in Windows 10 can access second (and third?) partitions on removable media such as SD cards and USB sticks. Older builds as well as previous Windows versions could "see" only the first partition on removable disks. But there are still shortcomings that limit multi-partition support in comparison to that of "fixed" disks.

See for example: https://borncity.com/win/2017/04/22/windows-10-version-1703-usb-stick-multi-partition-support/

--79.243.248.155 (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2018 (UTC)