Jump to content

Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Missing entries and unverifiable numbers

Moved to Template talk:Windows usage share § Missing entries and unverifiable numbers

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Windows 10 V.1511 10.0.10586.318

As of May 10th, 2016, Microsoft has released rollup update for v.1511 with the build number of 10586.318

The image is in greek because I am running the system in Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotirisdim4 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

V *.104

i regularely check my version against this site and i never was ahead of it. currently my version ends with .104 whilst yours is .71. i neither know how important this is nor if it's a german-only version but please check. thanks!

screenshot of windows v.104

Fansoft (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Windows NT

This section should be spit into seperate parts for each windows operating system mentioned in it. Professer YANA (talk) 12:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It already has. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Market share

If comparing market share with alternative operating systems, such as Android, is relevant, then shouldn't the fact that Symbian outsold Windows up until 2009(?) be mentioned as well?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.167.189 (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Natural disambiguation and the lede

[1] The software is known as "Windows" and is referenced as this (and not as "Microsoft Windows) in the article's sources. It makes sense to use "Microsoft Windows" as natural disambiguation for the article title (instead of "Windows (operating system)"), but remember that this is only because there are other "Windows" that take precedence—otherwise this article would be sitting at "Windows". The natural disambig doesn't mean that we should then use the same phrase throughout the article. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't mean we necessarily shouldn't, either. Jeh (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
"Microsoft Windows" is the full and correct name of the product and therefore, it is part of its identity. Removing it was simply wrong. I myself always use "Windows" in Wikipedia, but in its own article, I expect to see "Microsoft Windows" three times. (Lead, infobox and history.) —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Additionally, "Windows" has redirected here for over half a decade. Either it should point to window as its plural and likely the primary topic, or if the argument is that "Windows" in plural more often refers to the operating system, the article title should go from "Microsoft Windows"→"Windows" as unnecessary disambiguation. czar 17:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This argument is an example of false dichotomy. We are in no way stuck between two options, one being breaking half a million inbound links to "Windows" and the other a violating the consensus established in the previous failed move requests. We have the option of maintaining the status quo which is sane and logical. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016

I want to add windows xp Cookiemonster005 (talk) 18:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article, in a section titled "Home versions of Windows XP". Does this header need tweaked? —C.Fred (talk) 18:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Uptime?

Reliability is hard to compare, but maximum uptime is useful indicator. What is best (known) uptime for each version of Windows? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.112.166 (talk) 20:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC) XP: 131 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.91.112.9 (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2017

current latest stable version is 14393.693, released Jan, 10, 2017 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4009938/january-10-2017-kb3213986-os-build-14393-693 Plast0000 (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Done JustBerry (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2017

2A03:2880:1010:6FF7:FACE:B00C:0:8000 (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Server 2016 missing from chart

Server 2016 missing from chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myster pda (talk • contribs) 15:56, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Size Matters

Moved to Talk:Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions § Size Matters
 – A duplicate thread was posted there by the same user. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Microsoft Windows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Usage

Interesting article. I just hope you are being careful when you try to provide people with information not regarding the product. Perhaps maybe something out there like a Microsoft 'Windows' tagline does exist, sure can coming from internet explorer when readily viewing 'Windows' versus 'Linux' downloads from "download" buttons. Persons of interest using this operating system is what is being referred to, not people using a different operating system thinking they know ANYTHING about Windows and how things are done using it. I have Windows 10 Pro, and for what I consider to be an honest look, take a closer look at what is being described in this article and try to come up with a helping hand in favor of a more concerned issue that relates to Microsoft. Anyone else reading this , I hope you understand. As for what this website asks for in relation to what people are actually presented with, please stay on topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:171:3C50:DC54:D96A:ACDF:9615 (talk) 04:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Metafamily

is not an English word and should not be used in the lead sentence of this article to describe the topic. See wiktionary:metafamily, or really, any dictionary. The word just isn't there. Imagine a 10-year-old, or a non-English speaker, or anyone with little familiarity with computing topics trying to parse the first sentence of this article. The word "metafamily" is undefined, which that will confuse someone who's just trying to get their head wrapped around the topic. (No, it is not the plural of family -- that word is "families".)

Let's put this another way: If I were to slap a "citation needed" on the term -- and that's exactly what I'm doing next if anyone dares to put that word back in this article -- nobody would be able to resolve it with a reference to a source using that term. That's a fact. I've looked already.

Let's put this another way: Family is in fact the grammatically suitable word, since the term "family" is defined in Wiktionary as "Any group or aggregation of things classed together as kindred or related from possessing in common characteristics which distinguish them from other things of the same order", and at dictionary.com as "a group of products or product models made by the same manufacturer or producer". Both of these are accurate descriptions of what Microsoft Windows is. Saying something like "several families" is better, but it's still not appropriate because that would imply that the families are not related to eachother. Warren -talk- 02:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello
It is a known school-taught fact that English language (or any language) is capable of breeding new words using predefined rules, and educated people can understand them. These words don't appear in dictionaries for a very long time. Example: Subfolder, subnoticedboard, coaxiality, superdialect, tag-minded, ultra-subpar. And word that you used and doesn't appear in any dictionary: "non-English".
In this case, both "meta-" and "family" are defined in the dictionary.
As for the fallacies in your comment:
  • A non-English speaker neither understands "family" nor "metafamily"; for him or her, it is meaningless gibberish.
  • You underestimate 10-year-olds; but it is true that they have a long way to grasp all intricacies of the English language. They don't understand Shakespear or Milton's works either. They encounter this word, ask their mom, dad, legal guardian or teacher, and learn it. It is part of the learning process and must not be avoided.
  • We Wikipedians are expected to read an article and summarize it in the lead, and summarize the plotlines of books, film or plays into "Plot" sections. In such cases we are not strictly obliged to provide a direct citation, because the citation is implied. (But of course, some people do so for very controversial parts.) If you slap a {{Citation needed}}, I will revert on the grounds that {{Citation needed lead}} is what must be used in the lead section. And if insert the latter, well, I will let stay, but you would be subject to ridicule because the body does demonstrate that Windows consists of several families. In fact, the terms "families" and "geneology" are used.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, guys. Just thought I drop by and say hi. Otherwise I have no interest in this discussion. So, if you want to call a WP:3O, go ahead. Don't mind me. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I have offered a compromise. —Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, you see what I did? My mere presence is like light. It brings about calm and knowledge with it, to a dark and gloomy world full of fear and hostility arising from it.
LOL. Good thing neither of you two are admins, or else, one day, I'd have realized that my username is changed to FleetArrogance or ArroganceCommand. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The change is an improvement, but it is rather odd that you felt it worth your time to protect the term "metafamily" and refuse to settle with "family" here, while also having spent the last five-plus years watching {{Microsoft Windows family}} without ever proposing to change the name or title of that template. Haven't seen you proposing a similar change at Macintosh or Unix either.
Also, FleetCommand? I'm surprised to hear you say you don't care about this, given that you're the one who added "metafamily" in the first place in response to Codename Lisa wanting to call it a "superfamily". Warren -talk- 05:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Warren
That template name is just the tip of the iceberg of all the templates names that I wish were different but I don't touch. The principle of Template Editors is: If a template's problem is not causing World War III, don't touch it. For example, {{Media player (application software)}} is just another instance.
Also, I need a second opinion: Everyday, I go to a dozen of discussions that I don't care about and announce not caring about them. I was thinking maybe, I should take someone with me today. What do you think about taking Mr. Bringer of Light? I mean after all, his mere presence brings about calm and knowledge to a dark and gloomy world full of fear and hostility arising from it."
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Microsoft Windows. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Who is Chase Bishop?

I am unable to find any original useful citations for Chase Bishop. The article currently reads: "The history of Windows dates back to September 1981, when Chase Bishop, a computer scientist, designed the first model of an electronic device and project Interface Manager was started." A cursory web search yields results that either contains this exact same sentence or slightly modified version. There are no patents for a Chase Bishop. There are no results on Google Scholar. A search on Google Books returns no useful results. I have therefore added a "Citation Required" tag to the mention. wneo (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed it. I looked at the history, it was added as vandalism and nobody caught it for seven years. — Warren. ‘ talk , 03:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Wow. Another one? Remember the one I caught a while back in the TPM article? That was a decade old.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Yep, I remember. Well, there's a nice project for us for 2018, see if we can find some more nonsense to excise. — Warren. ‘ talk , 02:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment: should we rename the article Windows?

Should we rename the article Windows? See the previous discussion above. Popcornduff (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Windows already redirects here. An argument based on ambiguity was settled years ago. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Oppose: This overall hinders its recognizability for readers. "Windows" could mean all sorts of things, commonly window or window panes . "Microsoft Windows" represents one concrete thing. There's also no current issue regarding this - its attempting to solve a problem that no one is having. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Windows already redirects here. An argument based on ambiguity was settled years ago. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Settled? Apparently not, because here we are, talking about it again. Yes, I'm aware of the redirect. Just because a redirect exists doesn't make it the right title for the article, it just means it's an option people use sometimes. Perhaps that needs to be discussed too (but in a separate discussion as to not bog down this one with too many points of discussion.) Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
No, that's not how other articles are named. See my article name survey in the previous discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Davey2010 - don't be rude. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename article "Windows"

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

The result of the move request was: Keep Popcornduff (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


I respect that the article is currently titled "Microsoft Windows" for reasons of disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS). However, I believe this is unnecessary.

  • "Windows" is overwhelmingly the WP:COMMONNAME, not "Microsoft Windows". This is the case even on the official Windows site.
  • The plural "s" provides sufficient disambiguation from window. See also friend and Friends. Further disambiguation between "window" and other uses of "windows" is sufficiently covered with the hatnote we have now.
  • Beyond actual physical windows, there is no other meaning of "Windows" that is even remotely as often used. This isn't like "English", which might refer to English language or English people, for example. The Windows OS is certainly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (We seem to know this already - the article already redirects from Windows, after all.) To quote WP:NATURALDIS: "If the article is about the primary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies." Popcornduff (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi.
Wikipedia is already suffering from a shortage of editor manpower for many important and sensitive improvements. And here you are, starting a discussion on what is a "color of the bike shed" matter. Even if we give you what you want, it doesn't stop someone else from starting a 'Rename article "Microsoft Windows"' discussion, and mention all the other articles that we renamed to prefix "Microsoft" to their title, e.g. Microsoft Paint, Microsoft Minesweeper and Microsoft Solitaire.
Windows already redirects to Microsoft Windows and I am already using it exclusively.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There are many ways I could respond to this. But it sounds like you're saying you won't mind if I rename the page, as it doesn't matter? Popcornduff (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. I have no preference between "Windows" and "Microsoft Windows" as neither is significantly better.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I think you're arguing against WP:COMMONNAME there. Popcornduff (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Examining WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, I think it falls down on a few points:
  • "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." - Other articles are titled Windows 10, Windows 95, not "Microsoft Windows 95", etc.
  • "Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects." Just writing "Windows" is sufficient to distinguish it from "window".
  • "Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for " - No one calls it "Microsoft Windows", hence WP:COMMONNAME argument. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
"No one calls it Microsoft Windows"[citation needed] (good luck with that -- it's a big world) Also, pointing to individual version articles as an example is poor -- the names of those operating system releases are indeed "Windows 10", not "Microsoft Windows 10". The more apt comparison is Microsoft Office, which is an article about the whole series. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Amazon does. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment - The issue that brought this up was due to the use of always using Microsoft Windows as a wikilink in video game articles instead of Windows. Even if the article doesn't get moved due to WP:NATURALDIS, I believe the WP:COMMONNAME is simply Windows, and should be preferred in wikilinks over the article name, as it redirects here anyway. Are there any policies that state otherwise? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
There are nearly 20,000 articles that link to Microsoft Windows vs. 2900 that link to Windows -- that's, what, an 8:1 ratio? Sure seems like we have a broad consensus for things being as they are, don't you think? This article has since November 2001 with its current name without any prior attempt to rename it. As for your question, WP:NOTBROKEN applies: piping to avoid a redirect is "a time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental", so don't do that. If you want to say "Windows" or "Microsoft Windows" in an article, great. Might make sense in a space-limited Infobox to use the shorter name. Otherwise, don't worry about it. — Warren. ‘ talk , 00:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course Wikipedia contains more links to Microsoft Windows than Windows - because that's what the article is called right now. Not evidence that it's the correct name IMO. Popcornduff (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I get that, I'm not asking to move the article's title, just how we link to it. Linking to Windows wouldn't be a piped link, it would just be a redirect using the actual common name that takes up less space. And I do agree that maybe it should be changed in infoboxes, but that's more of a question for WP:VG than here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Windows means a number of things. Microsoft Windows means one thing. A change like this simple does not aid Wikipedia's readers, and this whole discussion feels more like a solution to a problem that no one was having. Like the equivalent of Wiki-lawyering for article naming or something. Sergecross73 msg me 04:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per OP. Microsoft itself only uses the "Windows" label, including internally. Contrast this with the common automaker practice of, e.g., "Toyota Prius" at dealerships or in ads.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support if the redirect has already been in place, I do not understand any argument against it. KISS SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Enhancing my support with this rejoinder to what I see in the discussion:
  • "There are other things named 'Windows' therefore we need the manufacturer name for clarity/disambiguation." No. Windows redirects here. Disambiguity has been settled long ago.
  • "The product name is Microsoft Windows" No. Windows is a line of multiple products with multiple editions. The products and editions are Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4 Server, Windows Vista, Windows 10, Windows Phone, Windows for Pen Computing etc. The product has gone through many naming conventions with versions, titles, separated lines, but always just Windows. The manufacturer is Microsoft. The names of the product do not include Microsoft the manufacturer, as decided by Microsoft, the decision for which we respect on every other technology product on Wikipedia. This is, in itself, a defacto naming convention usually only superceded by ambiguity or the decision of a larger product (WP:AUTOS decided to use Make + Model) Examples given:
  • iOS not Apple iOS
  • NetWare not Novell NetWare
  • macOS not Apple MacOS
  • Linux not GNU Linux
  • Ubuntu not Canonical Ubuntu, nor Ubuntu Linux
  • Wii not Nintendo Wii
  • Android not Google Android
  • ChromeOS not Google ChromeOS
  • Grand Theft Auto not Rockstar Games Grand Theft Auto
  • Xbox, not Microsoft Xbox
The only argument I read that isn't based on alternative facts is MOS:STABILITY. The presenter of which actually prefers just Windows. If stability was more important than MOS:COMMONNAME we wouldn't ever be renaming anything. Stability is simply a paragraph having more to do with the internal text and layout of an article, not stability of titles. Stability in this case is not really an argument.
There is, as of yet, no argument based on Wikipedia guidelines against this proposed move. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not an improvement. The name is "Microsoft Windows". "Windows" is the extremely common shortened version, but it is more ambiguous. And the "argument" that Microsoft calls it "Windows" internally is no argument -- of course they do. Just as Priscilla doesn't ask the butler at Graceland if "Elvis Presley" is coming down to breakfast today. Eric talk 16:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
On all the MS marketing materials, meant for customers, it’s called Windows. The shortened version is overwhelmingly more common than the “full” version across all media. Popcornduff (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
It's been a couple of weeks. Is any sort of consensus in sight? Popcornduff (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Windows Sets

We need to mention new tabbed feature of Insider Preview. Latest build 17643 has possibility of tabbing desktop win32 apps with webpages. It's possible to tab unity, blender, calculator and edge together in one set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lei HeJun (talk • contribs) 10:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

bSemi-protected edit request on 11 September 2018

223.179.208.83 (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Gulumeemee (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It SHOULD stay redirecting to Window_(disambiguation)

Even though people refer to Microsoft Windows as WINDOWS, if you goto a place that have never used Windows before and say this is Windows they will get confused as your pointing to a computer and saying it is Windows.

Maybe have a update to say "For Microsoft Windows click here"

but otherwise it should stay as what it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by IDanielX (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop changing this page without a consensus to do so. Hundreds of pages about computer software link to this article, and changing the redirect breaks all those links. If you seriously believe the redirect is wrong, please start a discussion on WP:RFD and wait for the discussion to be concluded.

Source model: Change?

The Windows Calculator has been released open-source on GitHub at https://github.com/Microsoft/calculator, so should the source model be changed to "Closed-source with certain components open-source"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skynorth (talk • contribs) 11:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Windows (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 19:01, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Gemology

Is Windows based on LINUX? Yuneshwaran (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

"Windows 10" section duplicated content

There's mention of migration to git in the "windows 10" section, and then again in the "version control" section, so basically duplicated content in the same page. This really should be cleaned up 92.19.69.109 (talk) 03:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2020

What does "Windows Core OS" mean? I'm not sure what that is, but that page does not exist. 74.105.31.217 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 18:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

list of Windows code names fix

fix codenames on Windows its needs fixed also look up the code names on google

from mchughor@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename9.0 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Google.com fix Windows code names list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename9.0 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Age and History of Windows 10

Windows 10 is the latest OS developed by Microsoft and it is the best that there is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.30.59 (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:FORUM. This talk page is for improvements to the article, not discussing the article's topic. Herbfur (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2020 for updating information

The latest NT public release of WIndows 10 is currently 19042.685 not 10.0.18363 2405:201:600B:C84A:C564:4CA9:9B8F:CCB2 (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021

The Microsoft Windows#Platform support section has a self citation to Wikipedia. Please remove it. The section has otherwise no citations. --93.44.108.28 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC) 93.44.108.28 (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Run n Fly (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2021

Windows 11 will be announced June 24th 2021 https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/windows-11-launch-is-set-for-microsoft-s-june-24-event-here-is-everything-we-know-1811885-2021-06-07 71.169.166.208 (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: As it is stated in the article. It is expected that Microsoft will announce Windows 11. However this is not confirmed / guaranteed and will not be until the event. Please see WP:CRYSTAL - Try to avoid speculation, Thanks. Terasail[✉️] 00:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021

X: As of October 2020, the most recent version of Windows for PCs, tablets and embedded devices is Windows 10, version 21H1 <- 20H2 was released in October 2020

Y: As of May 2021, the most recent version of Windows for PCs, tablets and embedded devices is Windows 10, version 21H1 174.89.137.93 (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Already done —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In this edit, to be specific. Guy Harris (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

On June 15, 2021, Windows 11 was leaked through an ISO file on a Chinese Internet Company named "Baidu"

Windows 11 will be the biggest update since the release of Windows 10 back on July 29, 2015.


On June 24, 2021 at 11:00 AM EST Windows 11 will be announced. DefinitelyNotSoul (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
And it's 2021-06-23 12:45 Pacific Daylight Time as I type this; I'm sure this can wait one whole day to see what Microsoft announces, rather than posting speculations. Guy Harris (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2021

2409:4043:913:742A:0:0:225E:28B1 (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Living Concrete (talk) 07:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Windows 11 Platform Changes

Starting with Windows 11, Microsoft no longer offers SKUs for IA-32 processors. I feel that this should be reflected in the Platform support section of the article. LK Computes (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Done. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 15:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Will anyone be here when Windows 12 or something is released?

Self explanatory section name. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Windows 11 release date

The article reads "It is set to release in Fall 2021". Fall occurs in different times around the world, can you please switch this to a approximated range on months? Melvin.Udal.Clarck (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Fall in the US, since Microsoft's customers primarily are there. And just look at stuff like Microsoft Rewards. It's only available in the US. 68.50.116.194 (talk) 16:44, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Current line: "As of October 2021, the most recent version of Windows for PCs and tablets is Windows 11, version 21H2. The most recent version for embedded devices is Windows 10, version 21H1."

Proposed edit: "As of November 2021, the most recent version of Windows 11 for PCs and Tablets is Windows 11, Version 21H2. The Most recent version of Windows 10 for PCs and Tablets is Windows 10, Version 21H2. The most recent version for embedded devices is Windows 10, version 21H2"

Reasoning: I propose this edit because both Windows 11 and Windows 10 are currently supported versions of Windows, and very few corporate environments would be moving to Windows 10 in the immediate future. It's handy to have the version information for both Windows 10 on PCs as well as Windows 11, rather than assuming that everyone will want to know the latest version of Windows 11 only. ClooneyTune (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This page is about Windows software. The lines you want to be changed refer to the latest version of all Windows softwares as a whole, which happens to be Windows 11, version 21H2. The most recent version of Windows 10 can be found on its own page. ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk|contribs) 15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Remove "Windows Anytime Upgrade" from the infobox, as it is discontinued and an upgrade method to an edition of Windows, not a version of Windows. You don't use Anytime Upgrade, for example, to move from Windows Vista to Windows 7, you use it to move from Windows Vista Home Basic to Windows Vista Home Premium. Thank you! 2001:B07:6469:3006:E585:52B:6CD7:DBCF (talk) 13:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

"Windows®" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Windows® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Windows® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Add a list of supported languages and hyperlink it to the number of available languages 2603:7080:D3C:B33E:9169:E519:253C:4B33 (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 23 November 2022

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows → Windows – The correct name of the operating system is simply "Windows". Windows already redirects here; the plural form provides sufficient disambiguation from "window" per WP:PLURALPT. RoanDM (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Oppose per Britannica "Microsoft Windows" is the correct name. Windows should probably go to the DAB but it was discussed recently at RFD with consensus to keep but that doesn't mean we should move the OS there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the plural of windows is a much longer known usage (WP:time immemorial?) and would agree that if anything it could go to the DAB page (but maybe should remain as a redirect here). A product name does not supercede historical usage and long-term significance. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support There's a clear naming convention in use that software does not generally include the manufacturer name in the title. macOS not Apple MacOS, OS/2 not IBM OS/2, Ubuntu not Canonical Ubuntu, CP/M not Digital Research CP/M. Microsoft's own branding prior to 2008 was hit or miss on whether it included "Microsoft" when referring to Windows as a product. Since at least 2008, "Microsoft" has been consistently left out of the product name. The product name is "Windows", and does not need to be preceded by Microsoft, and by tradition of other similar titles on Wikipedia, should not include Microsoft. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Inaccurate NT version history.

NT 11.0 Doesn't exist. Windows 11 still uses NT 10.0.

Please update: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/17/Suite_des_versions_de_Windows.svg/700px-Suite_des_versions_de_Windows.svg.png TpapTheTechEnthusiast (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Operating System Version - Win32 apps, both Windows 10 and Windows 11 are Windows NT 10.0. The picture should be revised. --Yejianfei (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@TpapTheTechEnthusiast Irmanfauzi33 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Windows 365 into Microsoft Windows#Windows 365

I don't understand why we need to duplicate this text across two articles, so I'm proposing a merge. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Support. I'd have boldly redirected it, if it hadn't already been done & reverted. No reason to split it from the parent article. I generally like related topics being merged together into coherent comprehensive articles, rather than giving every single notable topic its own article. DFlhb (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
This split was performed just two days ago. I've simply reverted the split, clearly the change is controversial and an editor wishing to split it would need to gain consensus before doing so again. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2023

Remove the ".msix". There is no MSIX in the Windows Installer info box. Add infobox Microsoft Store ".msix" ".msixbundle"[1]. It works with App Installer Microsoft Store. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 01:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done
Thanks for pointing that out! It looks like .msix was added by User:Tajetaje with no justification: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=951250098&oldid=950917611&title=Microsoft_Windows.
I made your requested edit, along with a few other changes, to the "Package manager" section of the infobox: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1175143421&oldid=1173605079&title=Microsoft_Windows.
Solomon Ucko (talk) 02:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "What is MSIX?". Microsoft Learn. Retrieved 13 September 2023.

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2024

75.154.76.226 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
No information is verbalized here
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

"Windows®" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Windows® has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 July 8 § Windows® until a consensus is reached. cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Since Windows is going down due to the July 2024 global cyber outages, a {{current related|operating system|July 2024 global cyber outages}} should be added to the top of the page

-- 65.92.247.96 (talk) 09:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done megamanfan3 (talk) 10:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Privacy features addition reverted

My Privacy features addition has been reverted, with the edit summery calming the sources to be unreliable. But not only the sources are reliable, what I've added can easily be verified by anyone with Windows. This is an important addition to the article, and many would be interested in it. Sovmeeya (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Selfpublished sales materials like 'digitalconfidence.com' are clearly not reliable sources per WP:RS. And 'Try it yourself in windows' is also not a source. If this is important, you should be able to find sources that meet requirements, such as computing books from major publishers. MrOllie (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Since the article at 'digitalconfidence.com' is an analysis of the Windows Remove Properties and Personal Information feature, and not of a product by Digital Confidence, I don't think it's a "sales material". I don't find it to contradict WP:RS, and I think it's a reliable source in this case.
Also, my addition included info about the MAC Address Randomization feature. You removed it too. Why? Sovmeeya (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
They sell software to strip metadata. If they publish something on that topic it is obviously marketing. And again, it is self published. If you read WP:RS and missed the parts about self published sources, you should read it again.
MAC address randomization is a very minor detail and probably not worth covering - especially since the source you cited is of the opinion that it isn't enough to secure privacy. Thus I found that the text added misrepresented the point of the source. MrOllie (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
It's true that Digital Confidence has an interest in pointing out flaws in Windows built-in metadata stripper so that people will buy their metadata strippers. It supports their marketing effort, but it's not marketing in itself. I don't think that makes the article unsuitable to be a source in Wikipedia. A "reliable" publisher of a book or a magazine also have an interest - to sell its books/magazines.
I have not missed the part about Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_(online_and_paper). It gives "Self-published books and newsletters, personal pages on social networking sites, tweets, and posts on Internet forums" as an examples. None of them relevant to the article in question. It also says "self-published sources are largely not acceptable".
I think that removing the part about the Windows Remove Properties and Personal Information feature, and the source that was attached is a mistake.
As for MAC address randomization, I think it's important enough to be included, even if the feature is not perfect. Sovmeeya (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The exceptions to the rule on self-published sourcing are specific and obviously do not apply here - they're for people like Eugene Volokh who is a noted scholar who also publishes a blog. If you don't believe me for whatever reason, feel free to seek clarification with others - WP:TEAHOUSE is good for such things. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm suggesting this: we'll return my addition and use this as a source for the mere existence of the Remove Properties and Personal Information feature in Windows Vista.
I could not find another analysis of this feature like the one by Digital Confidence. I think it's an important and useful analysis. So we'll mention that "This feature has been criticized for its very limited support of file formats and metadata elements and for having a misleading user interface." and use the article by Digital Confidence as a source just for the claim that the feature has been criticized, without Wikipedia actually endorsing the critique and presenting it as a fact.
This raises a question of whether the fact that this feature has been criticized by Digital Confidence is notable enough to be mentioned here. I think that given the fact that Digital Confidence has been focusing on creating metadata stripping products since 2009, it can be regarded as an expert on the subject, and therefore its critique of another vendor's tool in this field is notable. The article appears to be neutral and professional, despite the vested interest, and the claims there are verifiable. For the purpose of my suggested use of this source, these traits are relevant. Sovmeeya (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The solution for 'I can't find a reliable source' is not 'use the unreliable source anyway'. We have to leave this out. Selling software does not cause one to become an expert as Wikipedia defines such things - this citation is clearly unusable. MrOllie (talk) 18:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That's not what I was saying. I'm saying we'll use the Digital Confidence source to back the fact that the Windows feature has been criticized. This fall under case 3 of Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works#Acceptable_use_of_self-published_works. (the statement concerns the source itself) Sovmeeya (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
And I'm saying that the Digital Confidence source cannot be used. WP:ABOUTSELF is obviously not applicible. That's for things like a celebrity sharing their middle name on social media. Digital Confidence could only be used under aboutself for things like describing their company location, officers, etc. MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That's unreasonable. Digital Confidence surly can be used as a source for saying "Digital Confidence has published an analysis of Microsoft's metadata stripper where it claims it to be flawed". That don't mean that what they say in the analysis is true! but if what they say appears to be true, and certainly if it's verifiable by anyone who has Windows, (tens of millions of people) that could be enough to establish notability of the statement, and to be mentioned in Wikipedia. (without presenting what they say as facts) Sovmeeya (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
You may find Wikipedia's sourcing policies unreasonable, but we still need to follow them. Tossing 'Person X says' in front is not enough to include a self published source in an article, or else we'd have 'Flat earther X says the Earth is actually flat' in our article about the solar system. MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
There are two different and independent questions here:
1. Is self-published work a reliable and usable source of info about themselves, such as "Person X says"? ("about themselves" include their personal view of other people or matters, whether it's explicitly stated, as in "I believe that" or not)
2. Is some fact backed by a reliable source worth mentioning in a particular Wikipedia article?
The answer to the first question is without a doubt yes! This is consistent with Wikipedia policies. It makes no difference who the person is and what he says. Even if the person is some random guy, and what he says is utter nonsense, it satisfies the Wikipedia requirements for a reliable source.
Of course, not every fact with a reliable source should be published in Wikipedia. Only notable facts should. The facts must be examined and judgment must be exercised for each case.
Example:
Lets say, hypothetically, Tylor Swift tweeted on her official social media page the following:
  1. Justin Timberlake is the sexiest man alive
  2. I honestly believe that Earth is flat
  3. Yesterday was a lovely day
All three statements could be ascribed to Swift in Wikipedia as simple facts with a reliable and usable source! but not all should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The first two would have been quite interesting facts to mention on the Wikipedia page on Swift. Fact no. 2 could also be mentioned at Modern flat Earth beliefs, since she is a notable and influencing celeb, even if not an expert in the field. The third fact is certainly not interesting at all.
Back to our case. The statement "Digital Confidence has published an analysis of Microsoft's metadata stripper where it claims it to be flawed" is a fact with a reliable and usable source. (self-published) The only question now is whether this fact is worth mentioning in this article or not. I believe it is, in light of the following:
  1. Digital Confidence has been focusing on developing (not just selling) metadata stripping products since 2009, hence it can be regarded as an expert on the subject, and therefore its critique of another vendor's tool in this field is notable
  2. The article appears to be neutral and professional, despite the vested interest
  3. The claims there are verifiable
  4. Digital Confidence has an economical incentive not to publish false analysis that can be easily refuted
  5. The flaws has still not been rectified in the latest Windows 11, 17 years after the feature has been introduced in Vista
In this case, for the purpose of determining whether the fact that Digital Confidence has published an analysis is notable, these traits are relevant. Publishing this fact on Wikipedia does not imply that Wikipedia endorse the analysis, it only means that it's worth mentioning.
The fact and the source in this case are similar to an "External link". In Wikipedia:External_links#Links_to_be_considered it is said "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." In this case, we cannot put the link in the "External link" section since it's too minor issue in relation to Windows, but the References section is certainly appropriate.
If you think that the fact is not notable, (after reading the analysis) please explain why. Sovmeeya (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
You are 100% wrong about the answer to the first question. This is not a reliable or usable source. Again, feel free to find a second opinion if you don't believe me for some reason. WP:TEAHOUSE or WP:RSN would be good for that. The rest of your comment flows from that flawed premise and reaches similarly flawed conclusions. MrOllie (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Two editors have agreed with me at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Is_self-published_work_a_reliable_and_usable_source_of_info_about_themselves? about the first question.
Can I re-add the "Privacy" section to the article as I've suggested? Sovmeeya (talk) 10:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Two editors who admittedly did not look at this discussion and based their comments on your one-sided presentation of it. I continue to object to this proposed section. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  1. I have presented the question of reliability of a self-published work as a source of info about themselves in a neutral and complete manner. Your insinuation is inappropriate.
  2. Only the first editor there admitted to have not looked at this discussion
  3. You have made a comment there, and had an opportunity to argue against. (you still have this opportunity)
Do you still believe that I'm wrong about the answer to the first question? (regarding reliability of a self-published work as a source of info about themselves) Sovmeeya (talk) 12:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I continue to believe that this would be an incorrect use of a self published source. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Microsoft_Windows/Archive_5&oldid=1259113492"