Jump to content

Talk:Windows 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.174.183.177 (talk) at 19:21, 8 March 2015 (→‎XP and Vista upgrades: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Administrator request

Please recreate this page was announced today http://www.winbeta.org/news/microsoft-officially-announces-windows-10-public-preview-coming-soon

 Done Page protection removed, please feel free to create or move pages here as is now necessary. Nick (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletions

This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because this is a new version of Windows announced by Microsoft. It would be great if whoever added the speedy deletion note took the time to Google for the information rather than making a fool of him/herself. --Pinnecco (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because this is a new version of Windows announced by Microsoft. --heat_fan1 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... (your reason here) --92.147.147.136 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Because Windows 10 is what Microsoft are calling the next version of their operating system. Even though everyone expected it to be Windos 9, it's actually Windows 10. Not a hoax.[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because windows 10 is being presented right now in a Microsoft keynote.


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because...it's not. See USA Today article.[1] --A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... Valid evidence is available that Windows will be called 10, not 9 (stated by Microsoft during the special event, confirmed by The Verge's liveblog). --173.21.51.97 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because Windows 10 is indeed the new OS to be released by Microsoft. As I am writing it, it is being presented live at San Francisco. Please check the world wide web before putting up such notices. --Vistaindia (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The hoax notice was added by accident.190.188.177.123 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This page should not be speedy deleted as pure vandalism or a blatant hoax, because... this really is what Microsoft's newest OS is called. --88.195.121.130 (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Never delete former discussions!

Former discussion (as the one above) is never deleted. It is eventually archived if the discussion page gets too long. Deleting other users' posts borders on vandalism. And the discussion was NOT disruptive, it was a reaction to a deletion request. The discussion should remain even after the problem is solved. --Maxl (talk) 18:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Vandalism and disruptive editing are always reverted, be it in talk page or elsewhere. Reverting them is exempt to WP:3RR. Deleting other vandalism is not vandalism. Contesting a deletion is different from WP:BLUDGEON.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This should be removed from this talk page and placed on the offenders talk page. EoRdE6 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was NOT disruptive. It simply was reactions to a deletion request. Disruptive edits look differently. I see no offenders and no offence here. It's not an offence to contest a deletion request. It was your deletion request and these were the reactions. Maybe you don't like to see the reactions to what turned out to be a mistake. But that doesn't make them vandalism or disruptive or an offence. Yes, vandalism is sometimes deleted from discussion pages but that's not what we have here. What we have here is, simply, a discussion you don't seem to like. You could have avoided it by first checking the facts before you posted the deletion request - but now it's happened and it cannot be reversed. The point is that Win 10 exists and that's what you overlooked and that's why your deletion request was contested. These things happen and they're not vandalism. --Maxl (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, no, I don't like disruptive reactions. But if you love this style messaging, I shall make sure all my communications in your talk page is that way! Although, perhaps you have heard of the proverbial phrase, "having a taste of one's own medicine". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like disruptive reactions either but these weren't disruptive. I don't see why you think they are. Anyway, I don't see why you should post contests to deletion requests on my discussion page. That wouldn't make a lot of sense, would it? --Maxl (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was disruptive because one thread was enough. An admin would have seen it and acted on it. There was no need to fill an entire page. Also, since I removed the CSD myself on the basis of being a mis-click, I could revert the consequence as well, so as to not to give an impression that there ever was a rejection of CSD.
I surely won't be posting DR notices on your talk page, but I said "style" not "DR notices", right?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did NOT remove the deletion request, that was another user. You only modified it. That's clearly visible in the article history. And, as to the number of contestions, Win10 was all over the news, so many people may have looked if there already was an article on Win 10 in the Wikipedia and many saw your deletion request. And so, many of them reacted. Maybe one thread would have sufficed but it was the situation that prompted several reactions. They were directed at the deletion request but you seem to take them a bit too personally. No need for this! Anyway, even a whole page of contests of deletion requests aren't automatically vandalism or disruptive. It depends on what was written and that was OK! --Maxl (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. See Special:Diff/627705970/prev. I self-reverted on 17:39 UTC. In addition, the "Contested Deletion" section is auto-generated from CSD script. A PROD is removed, not contested in talk page. Only it was the wrongest time for Twinkle to break down on me. On the other hand, it was the only time it could happen, with all the traffic.
And no, I didn't take this personally. (I spend a lot of time telling people that a revert is not a sign of hatred.) In fact, it is in these stressful times that friendships are forged. (Where do you think the term "forged" comes from?) And remember, I was not the first person to remove these discussions. This is just a disagreement, plain and simple. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add a picture of logo and homescreen

Microsoft and news agencies have released pictures of the logo and. One should be added to this articleEoRdE6 (talk) 19:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This request explicitly violates WP:NFCC#4: Previous publication. Until such time that Microsoft officially release such an image or a Windows from which this image can be derived, doing so is forbidden. Discussions held in various places of Wikipedia have detailed this issue extensively. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an official screenshot released here: [2]. Nclm (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also in full version : [3] (from [4]) Nclm (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to hurry this. If we do, it might start an edit war. --Maxl (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why 10?

It says in the article that it "was felt that they couldn't call it Windows 9". Could someone elaborate on this? KonveyorBelt 21:22, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I created a section called "name" to explain that exact thing, but got reverted. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That section is based purely on speculative information, plus it is irregular in comparison to the established format used by other Windows articles. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not based on speculative information. Microsoft has officially announced the name Windows 10, and explicitly said there were skipping the number 9, so there's no speculation whatsoever. Yes, it's different than other Windows articles, because this naming decision is unusual (well, maybe not for Microsoft). Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current text certainly lists speculation that is at best baseless, and at worst obvious trolling. Even if their assertion were correct, the confluence of events required to run on 95/98 *and* an unreleased Windows 9 without modifications is improbable. While that code exists in the wild (with modifications), none of it is remotely modern. They're using JDK6/7 internal test tools and code from a 13 year old version of jEdit as an example as to why "Windows 9" was skipped. Don't feed the trolls. Regardless, Windows 9 would not return "Windows 9" on any released JDK, but instead "Windows NT (unknown)". To cite a probable Reddit meme as a source for this is silly. I'm removing this for integrity's sake. --199.168.149.86 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been reported by reliable sources. Where is the proof that this is a "troll" and a "meme"? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An image on Reddit/imgur purported to contain an explanation and source from a Microsoft developer being "covered" is not a reliable source, regardless of who retweets it. You do realize how ridiculous that sounds, right? --199.168.149.86 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that you don't take this seriously (which is Ok, this is Wikipedia not a definitive reference), evident by the reversion of my edit. I encourage you to research the actual source code in question, the JDK (5.0 was the last available on 95/98, so you should evaluate this claim against software which targets that), and the integrity of images containing funny anecdotes passed around on Reddit. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet (apparently including this article on Windows 10). --199.168.149.86 (talk) 18:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally confused about all of the above. What is the connection between Windows 10 running old 9x stuff and the name they gave it? There's no speculation behind calling it 10, nor that they decided to skip 9, and as I see it, the technical details have nothing to do with what is essentially a marketing decision. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborating, skipping the number 9 is a very odd move, and because the name is odd, it requires some explanation. This is one of those cases where there should be a separate name section. Also, a source I added stating that skipping 9 was really because of the low popularity of 8 was removed under the implausible grounds that the source didn't say that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for skipping calling it Windows 9, as alleged above, is that certain code exists that queries the OS using 'if (osName.startsWith("Windows 9"))' which was originally intended to query Windows 95 and 98. This theory is very reminiscent of the Y2K bug; short-hand coding potentially causing conflict years later. Jchap1590 (talk) 00:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The version I remember seeing in the article was that they skipped 9 to make a statement about how radical an upgrade was or something like that. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The version-checking reason is actually patent nonsense. Starting with Windows 8.1, Windows always lies about its version number unless the application manifest mark the program as Windows 8.1-ready. In addition, there are different APIs for querying version and name. If Microsoft had followed its naming scheme, its name, not version would have been "Windows 9"; the version would have been "6.4". Actually, I queried [System.Environment]::OSVersion.VersionString in my Windows PowerShell and the result came "Microsoft Windows NT 6.1.7601 Service Pack 1". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They should call it "Windows 10-1"... LOLOLOLOLOL --167.230.140.6 (talk) 17:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, have you ever heard 10 is IX? The kid of my neighbor told me that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gegigie (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since the start of this discussion Businessinsider has mentioned Microsoft explaining the naming descision at the Dreamforce conference. Should this information be added? It seems like something readers would wonder about. PinkShinyRose (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict alert

Hi

ViperSnake151, this edit caused an irreconcilable edit conflict, reverting both addition of a source and repair of the CS1 errors. Please be careful. If you want the MDY dates back, use the script. (I am not saying you can't have it; just mind the damage.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MDY dates are back. Just for the record, if anyone wants to invoke WP:DATESNO, I am neutral. I just don't want to enter an edit war with ViperSnake151. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Top right photo

The upper right top photo in the article should say specify the screenshot is of the technical preview. Windows 10 may look differently or perhaps the same when it is RTM'd. Thanks --Polloloco51 (talk) 01:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done heat_fan1 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Programs and OS/ Xbox One

Should a mention of the idea of the "new unified structure" that is supposed to allow porting between platforms be added. Also windows 10 will run on Xbox One yet I see no mention of it here EoRdE6 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's already mentioned. "universal Windows app" is the term they used. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Universal apps were introduced with Windows Phone 8.1, weren't they? - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and no, this time they want apps and specifically games to be easily portable, especially to Xbox One and PC. They had issues with lack of apps and willing developers in the pastEoRdE6 (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editions

Is anyone able to confirm any of the differences between editions of Windows 10? All I've basically been able to find so far are reported rumors (http://pcsupport.about.com/od/windows-10/fl/windows-10.htm). I found some info on the differences between the Windows 10 General Technical Preview and Enterprise Technical Preview, but I don't personally feel it's of much long-term relevance to the article (http://windowsitpro.com/windows-10/differences-between-windows-10-technical-preview-pro-and-enterprise). Jchap1590 (talk) 00:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, no. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to interpret your response.. I wasn't suggesting that we add the alleged rumors that I cited, I was asking if anyone was able to confirm those rumors. Jchap1590 (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing

Microsoft have not officially announced that Windows 10 will be a free update to Windows 8.1 users. Why is this in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Feng (talk • contribs) 12:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Microsoft has not yet released details on how 10 will be distributed, or whether Windows 10 will be treated as an update like Windows 8.1, or a paid upgrade." --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Today sees the answer :) It is not clear from what Microsoft have said what what they actually mean. What they have said could cover 'you can use it for free up until a year after its release, after that, you will need to pay', for example, or 'Within the first year, anyone owning 7 or 8.1 can have it for free and won't have to pay anything more'. Lovingboth (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I object to your dispute. Multiple sources are reporting it as the latter, and even the Windows blog now specifically says "free [...] [to those] who upgrade in the first year after launch." ViperSnake151  Talk  22:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but they could have made that a lot clearer in the announcement, especially when they start talking about Windows "as a Service" which usually translates as 'with a monthly or annual fee'. I do note the small print: "Hardware and software requirements apply. No additional charge. Feature availability may vary by device. Some editions excluded" though, so I will add the word 'some' to the sentence. Lovingboth (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone for using 'most' instead. Annoyingly, although it says there are more details at windows.com, there don't seem to be any. Lovingboth (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, where's the source for saying "no charge for consumer users"? Have they said that the Win7 Starter Edition qualifies, for example? From the other perspective, clearly there is a huge financial incentive to charge business users, but that's not what "will be made available to customers" means. Later on, an adjective is applied - "Enterprise customers" - but even 'enterprises' are 'customers'. Lovingboth (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, they've updated their site, and Win7 Starter is not currently excluded. Lovingboth (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Proposal

Misc

There are various issues with the article I've been meaning to bring up. It seems none of them turn out to be simple enough to fix without discussion. In general, I recommend raising our standard for what constitutes "verified" information now that we can check facts against official information.

  • Microsoft didn't say "late 2015" was the release timeframe for Windows 10. What they actually said is that Windows 10 would be released later in the year than Build.
  • Why are the July screenshots notable? The only features mentioned here are the ones we'd already seen before then. It sounds like we don't even trust the source for this info since we say the screenshots "purport" to show Threshold.
  • The mention of the introduction of universal Windows apps in the Development section is not particularly relevant to Windows 10. Universal apps are already supported between Windows 8.x and Windows Phone 8.1. If we can find some information on what's changing for universal apps in Windows 10, that would be great.
  • Is Andreas Diantoro's claim that Windows 9 will be free really notable? Again, we aren't really trusting this source since we use the word "claimed." - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
shouldnt there be an explanation about the integration of holographic feature here somewhere? zlouiemark [ T ] [ C ] 17:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gossip isn't of encyklopedical value

The section "release" contained a long text about possible sales strategies of W10. Reproduce this including contradiction between different MS bosses, is although sourcered, nothing but unencyklopedical gossip. Further that gossip may very well be a deliberate strategy from Microsoft. We can not know. Eventually we will all see what the outcome will be. Then (at that time, when it's released) I presume this article will need a major re-wrighting of this article. This future product cannot be compared to for instance building of the longest bridge in the world. Very little can be changed the last months of any long bridge, but with software it is very different. So whithin this article, please keep the gossip down. Ladies and Gentlemen. I urge You all to concentrate on major technical development, and also what W10 require of the hardware. Boeing720 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some interesting figures by the way - http://techland.time.com/2013/05/07/a-brief-history-of-windows-sales-figures-1985-present/ Please note - the numers of PC's in the world are far more today, then they were back in 1995. Also note Windows 8 has sold fewer licenses than Windows 7. Boeing720 (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with what you want in the article? Again, this article is supposed to be about fact and sourced speculation, not editorializations. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same??

There's an HTML comment saying:

As per the practices of previous articles, this article only covers Windows 10 on personal computers/full tablets as a successor to Windows 8.1.

Windows 10 on smartphones/small tablets is, for the purposes of Wikipedia, considered to be a version of Windows Phone, and has a separate article. Please DO NOT add phone-related information to this article.

Why are they not the same version of Windows for different devices (but instead different versions of Windows with the same name)?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 10 for mobile still has significant differences from Windows 10 for PC; even though they are based upon the same kernel, it does not use desktop interface at all, it is not available to the public outside of new devices (must be approved from OEM by Microsoft), it cannot run non-Windows Store apps (i.e. EXE/Win32 software; WinRT apps are now the style of app used by both platforms), and it is, upon what we've seen of it, clearly an evolution of Windows Phone with some components of Windows 10 for PC grafted onto it, and no more "Windows Phone" name. There will also be more specific features and reception to both platforms.
As Codename Lisa has said, "Exaggeration has always been one of the techniques of [advertising]"; even though they can all run one specific class of software and have similar UI components, it does not mean that the two platforms are exactly the same. We cannot give undue weight to specific viewpoints: it would be undue to solely recognize Microsoft's view that these are both the "same". The Windows 10 for mobile article does contain references to statements by both secondary sources and Microsoft dealing with how it is being marketed. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And now, without properly completing the discussion or reaching a consensus of uninvolved users, Windows 10 for phone got merged into here. You're taking Microsoft's exaggerations way too seriously. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Build Number?

  • This is precisely why I removed the build number in the first place. There's no real, official evidence as to which version this actually was; only some speculation by dubious third-party sources. For all we know, that was a special build specifically for the event, and doesn't fall under any regular numbering scheme. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the link correct? It links to Software assurance, but there is a different page for a Microsoft product named Microsoft Software Assurance, based on the source and the introductions on both pages it seems the link should change. However, the source also nuances the statement by stating that the relevant consumer group gets access to windows 10 through their own product (while the wikipedia article currently suggests they won't get access to a windows 10 upgrade). Should the consumergroup be excluded altogether from the article? PinkShinyRose (talk) 00:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with phone version

There is an ongoing war brewing over whether Windows 10 for phone is a separate product or an "edition" of Windows 10, and whether its still related to Windows Phone, but now there's another storm brewing. Per their POV on Microsoft's assertion that Windows 10 is the same on all platforms (even though there isn't), another editor decided to merge most of the article into Windows 10 without a separate consensus, leaving it as a skeleton changelog and covering it all in the Windows 10 article.

Even with whatever happens, I still think that these articles should remain seperate. They are different operating systems for different classes of devices, and they will have differing reception, distribution models, development histories, and so forth. The fact that Windows 10 for phone may be treated as simply as an "edition" of Windows 10 does not automatically imply that we must adhere to it in our coverage of the platform. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no "war" going on or "storm" brewing, everyone so far has agreed to the changes except you, which could have a lot to do with the fact that you are biased since you are the creator of the "Windows 10 for phones and small tablets" article.User:User931 19:49, 05 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User931, I think you misunderstood my intent in starting the discussion. I in no way intended Windows 10 for mobile to be integrated into the regular Windows 10 page. I'd like to ask you to drop the merge request temporarily so we can first get the naming and branding situation figured out first. I totally respect your opinion for merging the two pages, but I feel that it would be best if we resolved one conflict at a time. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endlescoffee54, see my answer here User:User931 11:38, 06 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that we should wait until the preview release, and see if W10 and W10 Mobile are the same OS. Right now, it seems like they are still seperate OSes which use the same app store. We'll find out if that's correct, or whether they are both the same OS with a different UX fairly soon when the preview builds of WP are released. --RaviC (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would be a good idea to wait. I'm running the risk of WP:Crystalball here: Microsoft are expected to depreciate Windows Phone Silverlight apps (7, 8, 8.1) but this will not be happening to W10 mobile. So yes, universal apps can run on both W10 and W10 Mobile, but W10 mobile is still a distinct OS release as it can run 8.x apps. Merging the articles will create problems, but I think that considering W10 mobile as a release of the Windows Phone family will create problems in the future as Microsoft converges it's Operating Systems (which is their clear intent). NeoGeneric (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't once referred to the phone release as "Windows Phone 10" akin to previous versions. During the keynote, they were emphasizing that Windows 10 was to be a universal OS for all devices (PCs, Tablets, Phones, Xbox, Media Centers, TVs, etc.) Gingertastrophe 15:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leaked screenshots show it being called Windows 10 Mobile. 75.68.89.137 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

¿Is this really still an issue? otherwise we should remove the merge proposal from the top of the article as pretty much everyone disagreed with it... Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any further talk about it, I see no reason to keep the merge proposal template. NeoGeneric (talk) 10:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of Windows 10 on <8" devices article

Please chip in on the discussion in the Windows 10 on phones and small tablets talk page here

The proposed change would look like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_10&oldid=645784921 User:User931 19:43, 05 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personally I thought of this too earlier, but this wouldn't fit the current style of of various articles, though Microsoft has officially merged both products into one product, they are still distinct enough to be separate, for example Windows Phone 6, Windows Phone 6.1, and Windows Phone 6.5 are all different articles, the same goes for Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 (Blue), they are different enough to be separate articles, but I still stand on the fact that "Small Windows 10" should be considered an edition of "Big Windows 10", so I'll have to (unfortunately) disagree with you, but I'll be honest in the fact that when the product was announced that I wanted the 2 pages to be merged myself, but we'll hear plenty of reasons why they're too different bellow... --Namlong618 (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for feedback. I think you are comparing apples and oranges though. There should obviously be different articles for say Windows 10 and Windows 10.1 if that would be released. But this is all Windows 10. User:User931 22:55, 05 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant, these 2 articles are different enough, a better comparison would be Windows R.T. Vs. Windows 8.X, they are identical in nearly every way, but Windows R.T. can't run Win32 applications, nor can you purchase a copy of Windows R.T. unless it's pre-installed on a device, these are 2 separate articles for a reason (Windows 8 & Windows R.T.), I suggest that we'd alter the way "Small Windows 10" is presented, for example by changing it from the Microsoft Windows Family template as "Windows 10 (Mobile)", and removing it from the Windows Phone template, but merging the 2 articles would be counter productive, they may belong to the same product family, but they're still distinct products.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better if the discussion is held at the original topic/talk page because I'm going to repeat what I've written there, with that said, Windows RT was marketed Windows RT, Windows 8 was marketed Windows 8. Windows 10 is just Windows 10. That's what this is all about. Wikipedia should promote discoverability and absolutely not make own biased interpretations of companies branding or marketing of products, that should be left to the reader to decide on.User:User931 23:21, 05 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again my earlier comparison of Windows Phone 6, Windows Phone 6.1, and Windows Phone 6.5, they are all marketed by Microsoft as Windows Phone 6 (and prior to that as Windows Mobile 6), Microsoft still promotes Windows 10 <8" devices differently from ≥8" devices, for example the Lumia Conversations post, even during the January 21st event Joe Belfiore stated that the experience would be the same, but that the devices would be different, and developers still have to create phone specific code to port their applications to Windows Phone at present, but let's go back to the original discussion page, but let's not forget that the topic EndlessCoffee created was regarding a universal family of products across all Windows 10-related articles, while this is a discussion regarding a merger, we agreed that the branding and promotion of the 2 articles should be the same, not that they should merge content as sources will be very specific regarding the 2 editions, and most news-outlets will still treat Windows 10 <8" as "Windows Phone 10" despite Windows Phone officially being superseded as of January the 21st 2015... so I'll have to disagree with the merger (unless Microsoft will verify that these 2 are exactly identical), but unfortunately I don't own a crystal ball that can see into the future so I can't make any radical statements leaning either way regarding a possible merger at present...
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the perspective of Namlong618 surrounding how awkward the article structure would be if you were to exactly follow Microsoft's biased assertion that they're all the same. The fact that they share the same kernel, application type, and development staff does not mean that we cannot still treat them as separate products. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, guys.
First, we don't writes just because the subject is (or is not) a version or edition of something. We write when we have enough material. (I can cite policies and precedents if anyone wants them.) Second, let's face it, we still don't know Microsoft's plan for Windows Phone line: Just a new name (co-branding campaign) or total discontinuation. Plus, Microsoft has a history of sudden decision change. (And unfortunately, we in Wikipedia have a history of making a fool out of ourselves by ignoring the tried-and-triumphant policies like CRYSTAL and OR.)
The bottom line is: Don't hurry! Leave the mess alone for little bit.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 10 on small tablets and phones will not have the desktop, although it isn't the same as the desktop Windows 10 SKU, it is still Windows 10 and thus merging Windows 10 with Windows 10 for Small tablets and phones would make sense. Polloloco51 (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

：If Win10 for phone and the regular desktop win 10 are to be put into the same article, then there are no reason to exclude Win 10 for IoT, which obviously there will be a lot of different between different versions, and thus even if this win10 article is for all versions, we would still need separate articles for win10 for phone and win10 for iot and possibly another article for desktop win10.C933103 (talk) 07:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, they're inherently different products belonging to the same product families, Windows 10 for the Internet of Things is an edition derived from the Windows Embedded family of products, and Windows 10 for phones and small tablets is an edition derived from the Windows Phone family of operating systems, and independent sites will judge them accordingly, Windows 10 I.o.T. won't be viewed under the same scope as Windows 10 Mobile which will be treated differently as Windows 10 P.C. edition, they may belong to one product family, but they're still distinct products. --Namlong618 (talk) 08:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification for comparison see: Google Android, Android T.V. (replacing Google T.V.), Android Auto (for automobiles), and Android Wear. They're all different products with different articles, and they are all judged differently by reliable sources, but in the end they're all still Google Android, my point is that Microsoft Windows 10 is Microsoft's answer to Google Android, 1 product family, with multiple product lines, Wikipedia doesn't treat Android T.V. as Google T.V. nor as the same brand, that's because Android T.V. was merged into a family of products that was already established.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Microsoft Windows or Windoes Embedded articles would be a better example than android as different android branches are too close together and less referencable for the Win10 article structure than this one.C933103 (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal apps paragraph

I've seen a little "edit brawl" over the fact that there is a separate section for universal applications, ¿should these be listed in the version history/changelog or remain a separate paragraph? In the Cell.-Phone article it's listed in the table of versions, while here it's "a little bit of both", though they are quite vital to the operating system I wonder if they need a separate paragraph without further explanation similar to how the "Messaging" section was merged with online services, most of these include online services such as Microsoft Bing Maps, Microsoft People, Microsoft Xbox Music, Microsoft Xbox Video, Etc. so the paragraph could expand in how they are implemented and their relation to the web service, or they should best be listed in the changelog among universal applications. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Namlong, the problem as it is now is that not all of the confirmed new universal apps are found in the current version (10.0.9926). Therefore they can't be put in the version history table. Also, since the apps are added after hand, it's hard to get a good overview in the version history of what new apps are found in Windows 10. User:User931 21:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do not deserve their own section. And most of these apps, aside from Messaging (which is basically a retool of the old MSN-based messaging app of Windows 8.0), were already on Windows 8 to begin with. If the apps themselves have changes of note (which they don't, as most of them are, right now, unchanged from their 8.1 equivalents aside from their ability to be run inside a standalone window) beyond being "universal" (which is yet another term for Windows Runtime apps or Windows Store apps or Modern apps or whatever you call them; the Search box now calls them "Modern applications"), then the changes can be noted under the appropriate heading. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards version history

I don't think listing the version history from new versions to old versions is a good idea at all. This is a history section--it's meant to run from beginning to end. It's meant to show how Windows 10 developed from one build to the next, not the other way around. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is that the table is more functional when in reverse order rather than chronological order, especially as the table gets larger with more releases. Much like the gaming console system software version pages (e.g. PlayStation 4 system software, Xbox One).
Unlike previous versions of Windows, this table will get very large due to the continual updating cadence that is now being pushed by Microsoft - it may even require a dedicated page in the future. NeoGeneric (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going forward, Windows 10 is expected to be continually updated with new features, unlike any prior version of Windows desktop OS. So yes, I think a version history is needed. NeoGeneric (talk) 01:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I hate the style I must agree with NeoGeneric here, but still I'll have to state that we are not certain yet that Windows 10 will act that way let's not forget that Microsoft promised to do this with Windows XP in fact the whole Windows Vista thing should've never happened as Microsoft promised to continuously update Windows XP, but I think that Windows 10 will finally do what they promised with Windows XP, but we can't be 100% sure because as far as we know they'll back off of their claims before R.T.M. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see why these tables are ridiculous, it is a history of publically released builds by Microsoft. What do you mean by 'notable' versions? - I have removed some versions in the past because they weren't notable: they were leaked builds. Please point out which versions are not notable which are there now. Maybe this table is better served to have it's own page, but for now I think that it's ok since we are still early into the development of Windows 10. Cheers. NeoGeneric (talk) 02:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, to keep a good overview, we should start a new table as soon as Windows 10 is officially released and consider the Technical Previews a separate version and collaps their table. This will prevent the page from getting to long as long as these tables do not require their own page. Through I agree that the Technical Previews are notable versions, and will be after the final Windows 10 release.--84.195.214.118 (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rings

Dear readers, I've found this list on the Belgophone (Dutch language) Wikipedia and (roughly) translated it, it concerns rings in the Windows "stream" of developers and builds, now since we don't have an official Windows Insider Wikipedia article I was wondering if this could be added here...

Ring Availability Meaning
Canary Ring Not Public Canary gets daily updates and are only accessible by Windows developers.
Operating System Group Ring After the Canary Ring approves a build this one shall be spread across the OSG Ring.
Microsoft Ring This is the last non-public phase and will be distributed over Microsoft itself as soon as the OSG Ring approves of a build.
Windows Insider Ring - Fast Public Windows Insiders in thee Fast Ring get builds after they've been approved by the Microsoft Ring. These ones are immediately installed. This ring has been added on the 21st of october 2014 with the launch of build 9860.
Windows Insider Ring - Slow If there are no issues in the previous ring then these ones will also be shipped to the Slow Ring.

Fun fact: the "Canary Ring" is named after the fact that coal miners would first bring a cage with a canary to test if there were dangerous gasses that could harm them, if the canary were to die the shaft would be deemed "unsafe".

Here are some sources to back the claim up (courtesy of NeoGeneric). Referencia numero 1 y referencia numero 2.

¿What do y'all think? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be placed underneath the table in 'Windows 10 update history', and possibly rename the section to 'Windows 10 releases'. However, I wonder if this sort of information is really necessary on the wikipage about the Windows 10 OS, since I'm sure all other types of software would follow a similar development cycle. NeoGeneric (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but there simply isn't an anglophone Wikipedia page concerning the Windows Insider Programme, and I think that it's the same with probably every piece of software, I think that it could belong in the History of Microsoft Windows page but I wouldn't know where it would fit, it's not important outside of any context referring to the Windows Insider Programme, and in the belgophone article (Windows 10 voor telefoons) it was placed in a section specifically about the programme, I'll just leave it here and when the Windows Insider Programme has generated enough notability to become its own page I'll place it there.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separate update history article (proposed split of Windows 10's & Windows 10 Mobile's update histories)

Windows 10 and Windows 10 (Mobile) have version histories similar to that of Windows Phone's and the Xbox', so I suggest create a separate article to cover this for both P.C. and Mobile Windows, it will be separated into 3 sections, the first section is an introduction and contains general information about the Windows Insiders programme and will E.G. contain the table I posted and translated above in this talk page and in "the other Windows 10's" talk page, on Mobile Windows' page User931 has relocated future and officially announced additions to the bottom of the update history, in this article future updates and announced features are barred and blocked from entering as they would pollute, the perfect solution is following the Xbox school of changelogs and place them in a different paragraph above and gradually implement them when they're officially released, here's the proposed layout of the article: 1. the Windows Insider Programme; 1.1 for P.C.'s; 1.2 for Phones; 2. Windows 10 on P.C.'s; 2.1 Announced features; 2.2 Version History; 3 for smaller devices; 3.1 Announced features; 3.2 Version History; 4. See also; References and 5. External links. Of-course at present the idea might have less merit as they're both small sections, but there are numerous sources that have written in detail, and the Google Android and iO.S. pages are a great example, as well as Windows Phone's as no individual versions have the update history wikitables integrated directly into the articles but in a separate article, please tell me why this is a bad/good idea. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this is a good idea. However, I propose a slightly different layout of the page somewhat like this:
  • Intro
  • 1 Windows preview releases
1.1 Windows Insider program
1.1.1 PCs
1.1.2 Phones
1.2 Preview for Developers [<- PfD is a different program and is mostly stable software]
1.2.1 Phones
  • 2 Windows 10 [PC]
2.1 Announced features
2.2 Version history
  • 3 Windows 10 Mobile
3.1 Announced features
3.3 Version history
etc.
NeoGeneric (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Notice if this page will be created please merge the Windows Insider page I just created into it, thank you. @NeoGeneric the layout I presented was just a suggestion improvements are always welcome, and I like yours more. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeoGeneric: I have made a sandbox in the style of the proposed layout. No extra information was added, simply copy-pasta'd from Windows 10, Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows Insider, of-course it lacks an introduction, but seeing as how Windows 10 will continuously receive new features as time goes by in the same manner as Google Android, iO.S. and Windows Phone it would eventually become problematic to have such large wikitables in the respective articles, and honestly I doubt the notability of the Windows Insider programme as the #1 question I've received here and in the Mobile page was if it's relevant, still together they could be a pretty decent article and go in more details about the added features, the rolling out of features, while the "proper" pages concerning Windows 10 can simply give epitomic information. I don't know if other users can edit sandboxes but before this article "launches" (if no-one opposes it as A) Windows 10 hasn't been released yet so it's mostly premature, and B) the amount of information may be plentiful not all sources are equal) but if you could feel free to contribute to the project.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Namlong618: I've had second thoughts on a separate Windows 10 version history page. I still think the separate Windows Insider page is a good idea, but it may be best to maintain the version tables on their parent articles for now*. I just don't think that there is enough need to move the tables into a new article. Perhaps when Windows 10 reaches public release, but I would even propose that a version history page may not be necessary until the release of Windows 11 (or whatever the next major release will be called). *If the version tables grow to become too cumbersome in the articles, I would suggest collapsing the tables as a temporary work around. Apologies for the delay in response! NeoGeneric (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@NeoGeneric: I've honestly had a similar idea, though Microsoft promises today that they'll extend Windows 10 with new features subsequently they also made this promise with [[Windows XP] (or intended to do so), and that didn't manifest, so it's indeed best to keep the tables in the respective pages.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot is not real

The screenshot given is not from any preview build. Could you please fix this? 75.68.89.137 (talk) 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.
How do you know that? Actually, that's true; the description page says: "Screenshot of a Windows 10 build as revealed at Microsoft's 2015 January press conference". But why on Earth do you think it is not real?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Threshold"

Is there any special reason in bolding "Threshold"? I know it is a codename, but only if it is correct to bold the codenames. నిజానికి (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Codenames shouldn't be in the lead for Windows. They're not used in general promotion. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can we remove it? నిజానికి (talk) 08:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason codenames are included in Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 8.1 so this is actually normal for Microsoft Windows-related articles, I'm not sure if it should be removed without consensus.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't checked the history of those other articles. My only aim was to notify that bolding a codename is not common and it should be debated if it should be in bold. నిజానికి (talk) 10:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.
Per WP:BOLDTITLE, codenames can be in the first sentence of the lead and can be written in bold face. Microsoft codenames are frequently used in the mainstream news outlets. Hence, they are valid alternative titles.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the codenames were a recent addition without consensus. Codenames, in my opinion, should only be included if they are still frequently referenced after the unveiling of a final name, or if they are part of the final name. In all other cases, they become trivia upon the announcement of the official name. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly! And that's the purpose! There is no C before BRD; editors are encouraged to be bold and add valid well-referenced info. To knowledge, that's exactly what you do. And a perfect article is one that has all the facts about its subject, including what you call "trivia". (In fact, they are trivia even before the announcement of the finalized name.)
But the second boldface instance is a definite "No", and as for the first one, I wouldn't go as far as mandating the boldface style or even appearing right after the name. But proper mention in the body and the lead is still necessary.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support boldface. I think CL is onto something here; as Mr. Spock would say, it is only logical. VS151 is setting a too harsh standard; continued prominence had never been a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia and the WP:TRIVIA link is clearly being misused. If we were to hold that standard up, Wikipedia would have been completely empty. Fleet Command (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support boldface. Agreeing with the posters above, and so long as 'Threshold' is specifically referenced as a codename, I fail to see how this may cause ambiguity for readers let alone trivia.  NeoGeneric 💬  03:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the exact reasons as NeoGeneric stated.
Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream and extended support end dates

When will Windows 10 end its mainstream support? When will Windows 10 end its support entirely? GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is shown on theWindows 10#Update system table: lifetime for consumers, 10 years for LTS etc. However there is no mainstream/extended support like before so we might need to make that clear somewhere on the table or in the article. My mistake, there is mainstream/extended for LTS, I've updated the table.
 NeoGeneric 💬  22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

XP and Vista upgrades

Please add info about upgrades from XP and Vista (free?)-71.174.183.177 (talk) 19:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_10&oldid=650488127"