Talk:Windows 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate Windows 7 is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 28, 2010 Featured article candidate Not promoted
September 27, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on October 23, 2009.
Current status: Former featured article candidate
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Top-importance).
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Top-importance).
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Wait, isn't Windows 7 version 7.0?
A: No, it is not. It was made version 6.1 to increase compatibility with Windows Vista.
Q: Wait, shouldn't it be called Windows 6? It's not version 7.0!
A: No. The product is called Windows 7, but it's version 6.1.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Windows 7:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Article requests : Look at this section. Just a list of the features found in Windows 7, using the names Microsoft gave them. For example, "Gadgets". What is that? Provide an explanation.
  • Expand : This section needs to be expanded a bit. Comprised mostly of two sentence paragraphs.
This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:

Swapped Features with Development[edit]

I decided to be bold even though I haven't contributed to the article before and swap the Features with the Development section. The previous article layout was set up before Windows 7 was released (see edits into 2009) when the development (including which versions of which beta had trojans) would have been of interest to most readers. Today, two years after the release, the main items of interest for most readers will be differences with previous versions (or with other OSes). This redesign was proposed earlier in the Talk page but the discussion got focused on a proposed reorganization of the Criticism section -- moving up features and down development was (in my quick read) only mentioned twice and both times positively. I think that the Development section can be trimmed (including things like the presence of trojans or not) since there is a separate subpage for that. But I only wanted to do one bold change at a time, since it's not an area I tend to edit in. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Service Pack 1 Possibly a mandatory update[edit]

Today I noticed that Service Pack 1 is now listed under mandatory updates, while it previously was optional. I'm using Windows 7 Professional x86 (NL version). Can someone confirm this? If so, it would seem usefull to include this in the article for reasons of completeness.--Blecchi (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as I can remember, Service Pack 1 has never been optional; it has always been a top priority update. Fleet Command (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The article itself states "At the time of release, it was not made mandatory". This seems to be correct, since I only noticed the service pack when it became mandatory, while all other updates are always installed when selecting all of the important updates.-- (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:2011-05-29 11-00-54 167.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Saraiki Language[edit]

Saraiki language must be added in windows.


I am Using Window 7 Professional from one year. In my window I am not having the Bitlocker option. Please anyone can suggest why it so??

Further, Speed of my PC to slow, i work out at different areas to improve it but still it is same. Please suggest for any option which helps me to boost up my PCs speed.

regards, Sanddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not really what WP talk pages are for. Try the Microsoft OS and Software forum at . Jeh (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


An article dedicated to the criticism of Windows 7 needs to be written. KSM-2501ZX, IP address:= (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Already been done at dozens of tech blogs. Wikipedia is a place for encyclopedic information that is references to reliable sources, not for personal opinions and reactions. Now if you mean there should be an article that summarizes and references a large number of criticism articles, that's fine, as long as the sources are truly reliable (many blogs are not considered WP:RS) and as long as there is balance via a similar number of summaries and references to praise - in accordance with WP:NNPOV. In the meantime, some things along those lines are in the "Criticism" section here. Jeh (talk) 09:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Very well, now go ahead and make your pro-Microsoft bias delete the articles dedicated to the criticism of Windows Vista, Windows XP, and Windows itself. Just for the record, I'm really tired of seeing people invoking the "everperfect" Wikipedia policies for justifying plain incompetence, laziness, and pointless edit wars. (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The issue of NNPOV in "criticism" articles is more complex than I thought; it has been brought up specifically regarding "Criticism of Windows xxx" articles—see for example this discussion. So there is room for such articles, even if they don't present positive comments to go with the negs, in cases where the "criticism" section of an article has gotten too big. Why don't you go ahead and be bold? Jeh (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Then we agree that a criticism section should be added, great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helios solaris (talkcontribs) 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────This is about another article, not a section in this article.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I agreed that a "Criticism of..." article was apparently supportable, but even there, it is better to call it "Reception..." and present both sides. In any case, a criticism section in an article must present a balanced view. And remember that in all cases you must draw on reliable sources. Your own experience doesn't count, and self-published material (like most blogs and most certainly all webforums) doesn't count either. And just btw, anything with an edit summary along the lines of "do not revert until (some arbitrary condition is met)" is not likely to be seen as a cooperative attempt to build consensus. Same for misinterpreting others' comments as "oh good, you agree with me" when they clearly don't. Jeh (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Minimium requirements?[edit]

I'm running windows 7 64-bit on only 512 mb memory, and it runs pretty well. So I think we chould have a minimum required and minimum recommended section, anyone agree? Wikimann1234 10/14/11 11:30 AM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikimann1234 (talkcontribs)

Oppose. Are you aware of Wikipedia:Verifiability, one of our most important policies? Fleet Command (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Microsoft's official minimum requirements are 1GB for 32-bit Windows and 2GB for 64-bit Windows (recommended varies by person: I recommended 4GB for instance). It may be possible to run on less RAM than this but it is NOT the official view. pcuser42 (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Unofficial minimums are unverifiable, and really are dependent on many factors.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - as per the above. --JetBlast (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

It could be noted that Windows 7 will run on lesser hardware without specifying our own thoughts on the actual "minimum". Perhaps a reference to one of those terribly written blog posts about ancient hardware is in order. Calling it a requirement and allowing Microsoft to get away with "If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:" is a disservice to someone. Somewhere. ζompuλacker (tlk) 22:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Q&A wrong![edit]

I was skimming around and found out in the Development of Windows 7 that it is the 7th version of windows.Gregory Heffley (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What Q&A? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sales Numbers in Reception section are misleading[edit]

High sales numbers does not necessarily indicate that windows 7 is good. It could indicate that there are no viable alternatives in many countries like e.g. India and Microsoft Vista was so bad that people were waiting to upgrade from Windows XP This fact should be presented in right context The section seemed to be biased towards Windows 7 and Microsoft. How can you compare Harry Potter sales to Windows 7 My mother is in India does not read / cannot understand Harry Potter but she still needs to use Windows 7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravichinoy (talkcontribs) 08:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The statistic says nothing about the quality of the OS.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

IA-32 vs x86 (or x86-32)[edit]

I would like to change all references in this article to IA-32 to x86, as this is the terminology used by, well, everyone - including Microsoft themselves. I could go with x86-32 as well. What do you think?

LarsHolmberg (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

x86 seems fine to me. Go for it. Jeh (talk) 13:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Boot Loder[edit]

What is name of boot loader used by Windows 7 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaseemjaved (talkcontribs) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's proprietary, that's all I know. Jasper Deng (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
It is simply named Winload.exe. Indefatigable (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Unless you're talking about bootmgr.exe - which loads winload. bootmgr (and the Boot Configuration Database) is the replacement for the old ntldr (and boot.ini). Jeh (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake (I cannot edit)[edit]

In the reception paragraugh, it says this - 'As of Januari 19, 2012, over 525 million copies have been sold.'

As you can see, January has been spelled wrong. Can some one please edit it as it isn't letting me edit the page. Thank you very much.

LGMarshall (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneJasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Service Pack 1 General Availability Date[edit]

According to Microsoft the general availability date of Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 was 2/22/2011. The reference currently given for the final release date of February 9, 2011 also appears to confirm a February 22nd release date. -- (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Handwriting Improvements[edit]

I think it should be noted that Windows Vista included several handwriting improvements as well. [1] (I love entei (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC))

Number of licenses[edit]

It really should be mentioned that the overall "sales" of Windows 7 licenses are not just sales of the operating system. New PCs count towards this number (they're currently bundled with Windows 7), as do replacement licenses. This...misconception of sales figures should not continue to be perpetuated. It is misleading to consumers and the like who will construe it as overall sales of the operating system. (MazaG20 (talk) 04:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC))

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Windows 7/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TBrandley (talk · contribs) 16:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


  • Merge very small paragraphs to others.
  • Add sources to many unsourced statements.
  • Many references problems. More references are needed for various unsourced statements. 1 example is: "Recommendations for Windows 7 is to be on Windows Vista (Longhorn) before upgrading to any version of Windows 7, and to have 16GB on the hard drive.", etc.
  • Windows 7 shouldn't be in italics
  • mostly → generally
  • "The New York Times,[98] USA Today,[99] The Wall Street Journal,[100] and The Telegraph[101] also gave Windows 7 favorable reviews.". Should be expanded upon. What did that say? Think of it?
  • "$" Canadian dollars? U.S. dollars? Which?
  • Clarify that "£" is UK pounds
  • Processor limits is a little small.
  • TBA. More to come a little bit later.
External links
  • Microsoft Windows 7 → Windows 7
  • Categories below should be sorted in alphabetical order


Thanks for choosing to review this article. I'd like you to keep me updated - as I'm the nominator - as to its progress. Upon reading the completed review, I will post a full response in this section. --The Historian (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure. The review will be above, in a review section. Cheers! TBrandley 15:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Most issues are now listed above. TBrandley 16:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
In general, it seems like this article doesn't stand on it's own. While there were only very minor changes from Vista to Win 7, the parts of this article covering the functionality, and architecture doesn't seem to cover almost any aspect other than maybe some of the bulletpoints on microsoft's Windows 7 cover page. What is it's networking like? It's security? It's storage? It's user interface, it's home and corporate networking features, printing, etc. As it is, it barely seems to cover a microsoft press release on "win 7 selling points".Bstone1 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
  • There don't appear to have been any corrective edits in response to the review, and it has been over four weeks. It is probably time to consider closing the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Current Version[edit]

This isn't the current release of Windows anymore since Windows 8 is now rolling out.

Can we get this updated?

I believe it is best to keep it at current until Microsoft declares it released. Microsoft is still advertising Windows 7.
Ziiike (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. It may be released to OEMs and MSDN subscribers but it isn't yet available to the general public. pcuser42 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Actually, I think if you look at the article again, you will find that there is no need to change anything at all. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Blimey I thought this would take longer to process. I am on the full version of Windows 8 hence the comment, still is there any need to demarcate, a particular version of Windows, as current? Then it would never need updating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, I understood as much. It was obvious that the problem is with the word "current", not version number itself. So, I had it fixed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and like all encyclopedias it does not discard old info merely because newer have been generated. Specifically, WP:DATED. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Semi protection was set to expire Nov 5. It's now Nov 7 and it's still in effect and wasn't extended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the template, I don't think the page was actually semi-protected, the semi-protection expired but the template had not yet been removed. Ziiike (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft Image Backup?[edit]

I got here on a redirect from "Microsoft Image Backup" but the topic of the redirect isn't mentioned in the article. Is that an improvement from something? I'll go look at the history of the redirect maybe... Economy1 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Economy1
I nominated this redirect for deletion. You can express your opinion in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 14. You may suggest a course of action such as Delee, Keep, or Retarget to another article.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Party Pack[edit]

What about some information about this campaign? Galzigler (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by LittleBenW[edit]


Today I reverted no less than 20 edits by User:LittleBenW. I inspected every single one of them and unfortunately all were problematic. To summarize, problems include:

  1. Factually inaccurate info: Windows Defender did not become an antivirus program until Windows 8. Shadow Copy does not create daily backup of data (other components use it to do so.) The list is quite long.
  2. Chronological changes: In Wikipedia, older stuff always go to the top. There is actually a reason for that: article layout should maintain coherence.
  3. WP:EGG: Not sticking to linking guideline in Wikipedia. In addition, we use summary style.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  • You're right about Windows Defender.
  • You're wrong about Shadow Copy. As described here, it is turned on by default on the C: drive, and takes snapshots typically at intervals of up to 2-3 days (depending on CPU speed and computer idle time). You can easily see this for yourself if you use Windows 7: click on the C: drive under My Computer, click User, <User Name>, then (for example) Desktop. If you have a file on the Desktop that you have been editing for a few days, right click it and you will see that Shadow Copy has kept one or more Previous Versions, as described in the Shadow Copy article. (When the disk fills up, these will be overwritten, oldest first). If you want to keep previous versions indefinitely then you need to run Windows Backup.
  • I believe that all my other changes are also correct. If you think otherwise, please list what you think are errors.
  • Windows Search is actually not "new", as stated, but just "improved".
  • There is surely no WP guideline saying that outdated and boring historical and/or theoretical information has to come first. In articles which describe history—e.g. of Windows—then it's common sense to put things in historical sequence, but not otherwise. It has been shown that the average web user takes about 10-15 seconds to skim a page without scrolling; if nothing interesting is visible without scrolling then the person moves on. It's easy to prove this: I reorganized the Computer virus article by moving outdated historical data and not-very-useful theory to the end, and pageviews have just about doubled as you can see here.
  • As described here, a previous editor moved the historical "development" stuff after the current features for exactly the same reason. LittleBen (talk) 10:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
That source about Shadow Copy is wrong. Shadow Copy itself does not do anything on schedule. System Protection and Backup and Restore do – and only when configured to do so. System Protection/Previous Versions creates persistent volume snapshots every six hours. "Ancient history" is a contentious label and subjective. It is not reason at all. But coherence is a valid reason. Introducing event in chronological order establishes coherence. As for compiling a list of all the problems, okay I will.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Previous Versions snapshots are created when the computer is idle. As the article describes, this is usually not as frequent as every six hours. Surely you don't have a reference for that. The computer does not have time when it is busy. Check it out for yourself. Snapshots are too useful a feature to be omitted from the article, in my opinion.
  • The glaring lack of coherence in my eye is putting a lot of ancient history (Development, Antitrust, Reception etc.) between features (top) and some of the hardware information (bottom).
Okay here is a list of the rest of your edits, as you requested:
  1. Link to multilingual support and security sections: Wrong because Wikipedia uses Wikipedia:summary style, not "see here" links.
  2. I checked and you are right about Windows Search, so we can return it.
  3. Moving info about sound customization: You moved info about sound customization from "customization" paragraph into "visuals" paragraph. I cannot imagine why. Perhaps you care to explain?
  4. Windows Virtual PC edit: You removed it yourself; not my revert.
That's all the changes you have made.
I do have a source about Shadow Copy. Hang on while I fetch it
About the editor who swapped the place of sections: It was a good idea. But I cannot say the same thing about your edit. I am not saying it is bad to change the location of sections. Maybe it is a very good idea to move Reception to the very end, along with Antitrust concerns. Or maybe you should move Editions section below Development.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. This is a text the comes from Windows Help and Support (start menu) in "Previous versions of files: frequently asked questions":
Update: I have updated the quotation below because a friend hinted that the help page that I was seeing on my computer may have been edited by my computer manufacturer and the six hours schedule is a work of that manufacturer. Here is the proper quotation from Microsoft website.

How are previous versions created?

Previous versions are automatically saved as part of a restore point. If system protection is turned on, Windows automatically creates previous versions of files and folders that have been modified since the last restore point was made. Typically, restore points are made once a day. If your disk is partitioned or if you have more than one hard disk on your computer, you need to turn on system protection for the other partitions or disks. Previous versions are also created by Windows Backup when you back up your files.

"Previous versions of files: frequently asked questions". Windows Help. Microsoft. Retrieved 25 March 2013. 

See? No mention of Shadow Copy. System protection creates the backup copies.
Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Help and Support on the Start menu seems to be vendor-provided or vendor-customized. By default, restore points are made only when you do a Windows Update: before installing Windows updates or drivers, a restore point is automatically created. You can easily check this: pretend that you are going to roll back to the previous restore point, and the date will be displayed. You can set the percentage of the disk to be used for restore points, but not the timing; (to force it, at a set timing, backup schedules can be set). MS documentation (Resource Kit or Win 7 exam texts) don't seem to say anything about the subject. However, "Previous versions" (of user files and AppData) are updated much more frequently than restore points, though probably it's between one and three day intervals for most users. Shadow copy service makes these "Previous version" copies when the computer is not busy.
  • I moved sound schemes next to Aero (color themes) because logically they belong together. Games (more eye candy stuff) probably belong here too, rather than being sandwiched in geeky stuff.
  • The new language APIs provide the new multilingual support, so this stuff surely belongs together. Best regards,  LittleBen (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Please see above again. I just checked. To break away from this lockdown, I am asking for a WP:3O. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that it's fair to quote MS as saying that "Previous version" copies are created automatically about once a day (this is based on Shadow Copy as described there)—though "one day" is probably a bit optimistic (there's no guarantee). I added this because it can be a "lifesaver". One should not use the restore point rollback to roll back individual file changes, it's just for driver problems. The "previous version" feature is for rolling back changes to individual user files. This "previous version" stuff is all described under Shadow Copy, which is why I linked to it. That article also explains that System Restore and Backup also use Shadow Copy. LittleBen (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how you'd like my style of linking to change... feel free to try to improve it. Face-smile.svg  LittleBen (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry, my boss has called me on a project. So, again, I am conceding the discussion. Good luck, my friend. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, you've done a lot of good work on computing articles, an area that few people are contributing to. I hope you keep up your good work, please don't be discouraged. Best regards.  LittleBen (talk) 13:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
"Based on Shadow Copy" or "Uses Shadow Copy" does not mean that VSS is actually doing the copying. It is not. A "shadow copy" is simply a mechanism for virtually "freezing" the state of a volume (or other logical set of data, for example a data base) so that an internally consistent copy can be made, generally for backup purposes, while still allowing users of the volume (or etc.) to continue reading and even changing the contents of the volume. What is backed up will reflect the state of the volume at the moment the shadow copy is created, but "creating a shadow copy" does not involve "copying" anything. The copying is actually done by some other program, after the "shadow copy" is created. The "shadow copy" is really a virtual volume reflecting the state of the data set at the time the shadow copy is created. It is in no way a "copy" of the data set (unless the entire data set happens to have been changed while the shadow copy is in effect). Jeh (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Shadow Copy article says that the Volume Shadow Copy Service makes the shadow copies (by default, automatically during idle time). The blog that I linked to above explains that the so-called "Volume Shadow Copy Service" does not really make copies—it just records where previous versions are stored in the "free space" area of the disk, until they are overwritten—so there is guarantee that they won't be overwritten (and disappear from "Previous Versions") if the user doesn't use Windows backup or the like to copy them elsewhere. I think we agree on this, but it doesn't seem to be clearly and explicitly documented by Microsoft. LittleBen (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
No, the "free space" area of the disk is not involved. So-called shadow copies (rather, the older versions of blocks of files that have been changed since the shadow copy was made) are accounted for as "used" space on the disk. Actually finding the stores does involve areas of the file system not normally viewable, but that doesn't mean it's "free space." Microsoft does document this but it's more in the MSDN developer's documentation than in user's or admin's doc. Jeh (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Saving a new version of a document surely does not overwrite the old version—it creates a new copy, and releases the area used by the "previous version" to "free space". The "previous version" is recoverable until its area in free space is overwritten. Just like deleted documents. The shadow copy service is keeping an index to where the previous version(s) are stored, and deleting them from the index when they are overwritten. LittleBen (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but the shadow copy mechanism does no such thing. VSS isn't even aware of files! It works at the logical block level. And there are many types of files, such as data base stores, which are updated by overwrite-in-place; VSS is nevertheless functional with them, but of course without storing a copy of a "snapshot" of the store from some point in time. You are confusing VSS with other components. (As is the Shadow Copy article.) Jeh (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you have any reliable sources that say that VSS doesn't map previous versions to logical blocks, and that name the "other component" that maps previous versions to logical blocks? The instant that any of the blocks belonging to a previous version is overwritten, then that previous version is gone. It's surely inconceivable that the previous-version-to-logical-block mapping function is separate from and independent of VSS. LittleBen (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
VSS does not store or track previous versions of files at all! Nor are previous versions mapped to formerly-used, now-free logical blocks. In particular, restoring from a "previous version" (or a restore point) is not reading from a shadow copy, nor from logical blocks that are somehow part of free space.
"Previous versions" gets its previous versions of files from things like backup stores (which are basically zip files) and restore points (also basically zip files). The "previous versions" that you find via Explorer are not "shadow copies" (even though that dialog box in Windows Explorer used to claim that they are... not the first time a Windows dialog box has used the wrong terminology.) If you will look at the "Previous versions" available for any given file you will find that they correspond to times of backup operations and restore points.
It is true that the volume shadow copy mechanism is used to create a backup store or a restore point, but once the backup store or restore point is created, the shadow copy is destroyed. The backup set or restore point is, again, basically a zip file, and of course this is an ordinary file occupying space on the disk. It is not using "free space" at all and is not at all related to the concept of recovering "deleted" file contents from free blocks.
The purpose of the shadow copy mechanism is not at all long-term storage of old data, but rather to allow internally consistent backup of a set of data, even while writes to the data set are allowed to continue (except for very brief intervals). Unless special data sets like database stores are being shadowed, a "shadow copy" is a virtual view of an entire volume - note the name "volume", which is one instance of a file system - not of an individual file or even a subset of the files. By default, shadow copies are implemented via a "copy on write" mechanism: When a block within the "shadowed" set of blocks is changed, VSS makes a copy of the block's previous contents in a private store. Reads from the shadow copy look first in this private store; if the desired block is not there (meaning that it hasn't been written to since the shadow copy was created) then it is read from actual volume. Eventually, when the backup or restore point creation is complete, the shadow copy is destroyed, meaning that the private store is deleted. The backup or restore point store contains a coherent image of the state of the volume at the moment the shadow copy was created, but the backup or restore point store is not itself a "shadow copy". The shadow copy only exists for as long as it takes to perform the backup or create the restore point.
This is all in the MSDN documentation. A good starting point is here. Note that the above describes the "system provider" implemented by Microsoft, used by restore points and backup. Data base implementors and even hardware storage subsystems can implement the shadow copy functionality in other ways, for example by breaking a mirror set. Jeh (talk) 09:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
  • This article, which is linked to from the article that you cited, says (under System Restore) that "System Restore is enabled by default", implying that System Restore is what triggers Shadow Copy at approximately 24-hour intervals. The Shadow Copy section under this says that, "If a user ever needs to restore a file... it essentially exposes the point-in-time copies of files that are created by Volume Shadow Copy Service". So this confirms that Shadow Copy knows which blocks are associated with which previous version of a file—which makes sense, because Shadow Copy (VSC service) wouldn't be able to make a valid copy of a file if it didn't snapshot all the blocks belonging to the file at the same point in time. I'd define the shadow copy of a file as "a snapshot of all blocks belonging to the file at the same point in time". If the user doesn't set up Backup, then all the Shadow Copies are stored in the System Restore area (described under Shadow Copy Space Management). This article does not support your claim that "the shadow copy only exists for as long as it takes to ... create the restore point". I have seen articles that suggest that shadow copy plus system restore should not be enabled on encrypted volumes—as unencrypted shadow copies of open files may otherwise be captured by the shadow copy service. LittleBen (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Hm, correct on one point, I was too hasty - restore points (unlike backup sets) are indeed implemented via persistent shadow copies. Nevertheless, VSS does not make "point in time copies of files". It does not make copies of files at all! Rather, the shadow copy of the volume, taken at a given point in time, includes copies of all blocks in the volume that have been modified since that point in time. These do include blocks that were free before being written, and these also include the blocks of file system metadata that "knows which blocks are associated" with each file. VSS does not have to know about files at all - that is the file system's job, and the "old version" of that info is in the file system metadata which is shadowed via the copy-on-write mechanism, right along with everything else on the volume.
For example... Suppose I have a restore points (shadow copy), and I update xyzdriver.sys, which has been unchanged since before the shadow copy was taken. Updating the driver does involve deleting the old xyzdriver.sys and creating a new file, not overwrite-in-place, but the MFT file record that tells where the file generally is overwritten in place. So a copy of the old file record gets written to all of the restore points. The (now freed) blocks that contained the old version (now deleted) of the driver driver don't have to be copied into the restore point, at least not yet, because they haven't been changed yet. So the old version of the MFT file record that is in the shadow copy can find them in the live volume. Later, however, when some or all of those free blocks in the live file system are used for some other file, they are copied to the restore points before being overwritten. Not because they "contain data from an old version of a file", but simply because they are among the blocks in the volume that the shadow copies are, well, "shadowing." Nor is there any need to copy all of the old file's old blocks to the shadow copy - not if they haven't all been overwritten.
As long as you think VSS itself is copying, keeping track of the location, or even aware of individual files, either on the live volume or within the shadow copy store, you don't get it. That's the file system's job. Jeh (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Development Started in 2006?[edit]

The article states that 'Development of 7 occurred as early as 2006 under the codename "Blackcomb".'

I have never read anything that suggests the development of 7 started in 2006, or that any of that development was under the codename of Blackcomb. Indeed, Vienna was the codename, from what I remember.

The statement in the article also does not have a reference to it.

Can anyone provide a source for that statement? Otherwise, I think we should remove it.

Taraella (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Taraella
I've replied to a similar message of you in Talk:List of Microsoft codenames: If there is a source associated to something and you don't agree with that something, you should cite a source of your own. Then, we can decide whether to keep both contradictory points of views or not. (In Wikipedia, we cover contradictory points of view and highlight their contradiction, though I will not detail on the policy governing this at this point.) Otherwise, we don't just remove something with references just because you don't think it is true.
Right now, I am checking and the source needs its URL renewed. No problem; it will be. In addition, you supplied an additional source claiming Blackcomb was renamed Vienna. I don't really see the point of your objection.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Definite article[edit]

It appears three editors are engaged in edit warring, and as usual over a trifle, as usually, over a sentence that needs to be re-written completely.

The subject of the dispute is whether "the Windows NT family" is correct or "Windows NT family". Both are correct, and per MOS:STABILITY, no one must change it to another form:

  • "Windows NT family" is correct because it is a definite noun group. No, "the" does not apply to "family" because in presence of a qualifying noun adjunct, a qualifier is not needed. "Windows NT" already qualifies family. If "Windows NT" didn't qualify family, you must have inserted a {{which}} in front of "family". (You don't need to be you know which family: Windows NT)
  • "the Windows NT family" is correct because the majority of people use it, simply because it feels correct in their mouth. (I had this discussion with the revered User:Xpclient once.) It is the same as "You and me should go home" in which "me" is incorrect (must be "I") but people use it and it has become correct through use. People just feel it is right; every reason that I have so far heard was inductive: People first presume it is right ("how could it be wrong?") then try to justify it.

As in all edit wars, the edit warring sides strongly feel that their position is self-evidently right. It is not new; it happens every single time, so much so that the involved parties do not see that "operating system" is entirely redundant here. Wikipedia editors are expect to subdue these feelings and instead discuss.

And User:Codename Lisa: There is a D after BRD. I expected you to post a message either here or in User:Guy Macon's talk page immediately after reverting. Why am I not seeing such a thing? User:Yngvadottir and User:Guy Macon, why neither of you started a discussion with Codename Lisa, each other or in this talk page? Oh, and please none of you start by saying how wrong the other acted; this is just another thing that edit warriors always do.

Fleet Command (talk) 10:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think you'll find Codename Lisa did indeed discuss - at Guy Macon's talk page, which is where I saw it as a talk page stalker. The issue is now moot since you have rewritten the opening, but I have to disagree that an article is not needed with "family", to produce "the family". Which is obviously why I changed it with an edit summary to that effect. I do not understand your point that this rule is suspended in the presence of a noun adjunct, but carry on :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: So, Codename Lisa did start a discussion!? And yet, you reverted, even though you knew a discussion was in progress? I don't quite get it: Were you under the impression that the revert would somehow magically not be counter-productive to the discussion, given its outcome? Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Fleet Command, I reverted once, on the quite reasonable assumption that an edit by a one-edit IP with an edit comment of "Fuck's sake, this isn't XDA" might have caused Codename Lisa to revert on sight without carefully considering the grammar. When Codename Lisa reverted me, I realized that she meant to re-introduce her preferred grammar and moved on without commenting. Please don't call my single edit "edit warring" or insist that I carry on a discussion which has zero chance of being productive. Making a single edit and then choosing to not contest the issue when reverted was proper behavior on my part, Please do not claim otherwise.
Now that you have brought it up,
"Windows 7 is a personal computer operating system developed by Microsoft as part of the Windows NT family of operating systems."
Is the normal way that the English language is spoken and written, and
"Windows 7 is a personal computer operating system developed by Microsoft as part of Windows NT family of operating systems."
is not. Spelling and grammar are descriptive, not proscriptive prescriptive, (Fixed typo. See Linguistic prescription).
The above is the grand total of time that I am willing to devote to this issue. Please leave me out of any future discussions on this and feel free to word the article as you please. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) Edited 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First, it is "prescriptive" not "proscriptive". It if you believed it was not proscriptive, you'd have never reverted.
  • Second, it is a fact that different English variations have different tendencies towards using "the" liberally. The British use "the" less often than the American. As I said, both are correct; hence MOS:STABILITY: Don't correct the correct. (This applies to you too, Codename Lisa, Yngvadottir and everyone else.)
  • Third, if there was a Club of Edit Warriors, "I reverted once" would be their slogan. X reverts once, Y reverts once, Z reverts once and BAM! We have an edit war but every single person in it says "I reverted once". Just because you didn't violate WP:3RR doesn't mean you didn't edit war, especially since you actively refused collaboration, started your message to Codename Lisa with a "snide remark", ended it with an insult, eventually kicked her out of your talk page with a combative edit summary that reads I am right and I don't care what you say.
  • Fourth, why every single time you are involved with Codename Lisa, you kick up this kind of drama? You even once officially called her a liar at the cost of not becoming a member of WP:MedCom. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. If you two have issues outside Wikipedia, please keep it there. Otherwise, I don't stand aside and see you two compromising the integrity of Wikipedia just so you can get back at each other.
  • Fifth, in my last sentence, if you feel I must have written "the revert button" instead of "revert button", I am afraid I don't share the same concern.
Fleet Command (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The above is a good attempt to add drama to an otherwise boring conversation, but in my opinion, it still needs more drama. Could you scale it up a bit?

"A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction into a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day." -- Calvin, of Calvin and Hobbes

WP:EW clearly says "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement through discussion" (emphasis added). "Repeatedly" means "more than once". Yes, it is true that even a single revert made in the middle of an ongoing edit war can be considered edit warring, but there was no ongoing edit war when I made my single edit.
Perhaps you, as an editor who has been repeatedly blocked for edit warring, should not be making accusations of edit warring against an editor who has been editing for over eight years without a single block and another editor who has been editing for nearly six years without a single block. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @FleetCommand: I'm sorry, I don't know either the background to which you allude that is causing you to make such a big deal of this, nor the grammar rule you allude to that makes "family of" superior to "the family of" when there is an interposed adjective, proper name or not. I do know that having rewritten the opening of the article more simply, you have removed the problem, and thus the issue is moot. I'll happily accept your charge of edit warring since I decided to get involved in this article after seeing the exchange at Guy Macon's talk page, if it will get you to drop this now. It's out of all proportion and now far beyond the appropriate scope of this talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree 100%. This is a huge waste of time, has nothing to do with improving the page, and has become a stalking horse for trying to reignite ancient disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Yngvadottir: Oh, on the contrary I did not and do not intend to level charges of any sort against you. One element of edit warring is uncivil conduct and you have been more than willing to have a compromise and avoid a drama so far. I am sure this entire state of affair would have been far more peaceful if it only included you. So, sorry if you felt otherwise.
And, no, there is really no point continuing this discussion: Contribution is discussed and I have no intention of exchanging any more personal attack with our dear friend here. In fact, I must have not answered his question in the first place. Fleet Command (talk) 20:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

List of Apps[edit]

JUST as a thought, would a list of apps bundled with Windows 7 be a good idea … ?

I know I’d appreciate seeing one … !

Cuddy2977 (talk) 12:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way would this be different from List of Microsoft Windows components#Applications and utilities? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I didn’t know that was there, Guy, thanks. That’s handy to see. But I was thinking more inline with a list of bundled apps with each version of the Windows OS, listed on which of the relevant entries. The Windows 7 page would have a list of the apps bundled with it: Vista’s would be listed with that, 8’s with it: and so on an so on and so on … 

Cuddy2977 (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this website a scam?[edit]

This [[1]] is trying to get $30 to refer one to what I would think windows update will do for free.1archie99 (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If this article refers to any such articles please remove it as it's (probably) spam, especially if they ask money to implement features that Microsoft's Windows Update service would implement gratis.

Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 22:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Win7 Effectively Abandoned[edit]

MS have effectively abandoned Win7 since the release of SP1. Over 350 updates have been released since SP1 but MS stated there will be no SP2. Hackers 100% cracked WIn7 in less than 18 months, which was even faster than they 'SLP' cracked WinXP. Win8 with secure boot and signatures was designed to stop the rootkit-style bypassing used by the hackers to activate Win7. Hackers 100% cracked Win8 Pro with VLK tricks within 6 months of its release. MS are now bleating on about the replacement for Win8, supposedly Win10, as Win9 confuses with Win9x. (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How is this relevant to the article? pcuser42 (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
@Pcuser42: Incorrect and sensational, this is obviously trolling. You should have deleted it instead of responding to it, per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TALK. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Windows 7. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^