Talk:Windows 10

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%[1] –that share could be up to 30.807 people.. (also in some country in Europe, or possibly only region; I ruled out Åland Islands[2]). 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).

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)

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)

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)

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

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)