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 195.109.63.17 (talk) at 13:03, 11 December 2015 (→NPOV issue: Operating system as a service). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleWindows 10 has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 30, 2014Guild of Copy EditorsCopyedited
October 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 17, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Terry Myerson compared the technological differences between Windows 10 and 7 to the differences between a Tesla and a first-generation Prius?
Current status: Good article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Seriously, who keeps removing the codenames?

Here's a list of articles on Wikipedia:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
GA on Hold, pending addressing recommended problem issues, above. — Cirt (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Oh okay, that makes sense, passed this one as GA. — Cirt (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[1]

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

[2]

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

  1. ^ http://blog.jerrynixon.com/2015/03/windows-core-is-windows-10-is-windows.html
  2. ^ http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32658340

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Date format

The rules for date formats are pretty simple: The article started with MDY dates [1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Interestingly enough, ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs), who made the initial change in August [2] agreed and tried to have it changed back [3] but was subsequently reverted. Calidum T|C 16:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.[4] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]

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 [5]. 04:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2015

Update latest preview release to 10576


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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

That is original research. You must provide a reliable, secondary source. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
@FleetCommand: Isn't the app called Get Started? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: Doesn't Windows 10 come with a Contact Support app? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Here: [6] and [7]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We do not mix opinion in with factual content. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
And we have this: Windows 10 Update KB3120677 Allegedly Resetting Default Apps, Privacy Config.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Bott source

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

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_10&oldid=694772415"