Talk:Windows 7/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8


Windows 7 is NOT really version 7

Microsoft's product release 'Windows 7' that this Wiki article documents, has version number 6.1.7600 - which is self-evident. Using the name Seven is a pure marketing tactic - and has NOTHING to do with the real Windows product's version number - which is indeed 6.1. And if you're putting forth the argument that 'W7' is versioned 6.1 to 'indicate its similar build to Vista' & 'increase compatibility with apps that check major version #s', then for once, let's reverse our thinking - assume IT IS version 6.1 - AND it has been named W7. For the first point, it's a fact that it's similiar to Vista, since it's the same codebase, secondly - the thing about compatibility is something abstract (or should i say absurd?) that you're talking. Assume this - the apps that check for version # on W7 would get 6.1 - which IS right, since the product that's just got the name 'Windows Seven' IS relly version 6.1 and NOT 7.x by any chance. These propositions would collectively conclude that this Windows release SHOULD not be 'versioned' 7, but of course it can be 'named' 7 - because after all '7' is just a name. After all, the apps aren't gonna read the 'name', they're gonna read the 'version'. It's We that'll read the name 7. So the name relates to us, only we've been wrongly associating it with a very lucky #. And that's what MS wanted - pure marketing, if you can see (but unfortunately few would). ;) If you're still finding it hard to believe my theory, then here's a brainer - read it whole again, but only temporarily forget that the seven in Windows Seven is a number, just think of Seven as a name -- and you will see light! Okay, I'll give you another brainer - let's (assume) time-travel to the near future... to the next release of Windows that'll have 'version' # 7.0. Then is this future product going to be named Windows 7?! I kid you not!! Yes, you're right - we're going to look back to when 'Windows version 6.1' released that was named 'Windows 7'. Or why not think this way - assume 7.0 or 7.1 or 7.x released with the name Windows 8, and the Windows version 8.x family got named Windows 9. Something doesn't sound right, does it? So, prima-facie this naming phenomenon by Microsoft is a one-time thing. And of course I'm not talking about the multi-digit names such as 95, 98 & 2000. And from what the contributor below has written, I infer he's talking about 'Windows NT version 7'. Tell me if I'm wrong. ~

If you add this to the article: It is the seventh version. "Windows 7 gets its name by reference to the NT line of development and its major versions, which not includes the belonging derivatives (explicit server versions and editions to be considered)."

  1. Microsoft Windows NT 3.1x,
  2. Microsoft Windows NT 3.5x,
  3. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0,
  4. Microsoft Windows 2000,
  5. Microsoft Windows XP,
  6. Microsoft Windows Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan.opitz (talkcontribs) 18:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Windows NT family starts with 3.1, which was the first windows. Only reasons of clarity in relation to the classical DOS/9X line, it was not called NT 1.0!
  • Major upgrades are indicated by the first digit before and after the comma! More decimal places usually have only a minimal role, and suggest little updates!
  • The 6.1 is the same as like 5.0 (Win2000) to 5.1 (WinXp). It is a major version! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephan.opitz (talkcontribs) 18:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The fact of the compatibility is only an additional goodie, because older programs primarily consider the first digit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
What is your source saying that Microsoft chose the name "7" because of the number of Windows NT releases? You saying that if not for NT 3.1 it would be called "Windows 6" and MS would ignore the fact that Vista was version 6.0? Look, it's just a name. It was going to be version 7.0, so "Windows 7," but they changed the version number used in the OS for compatibility, it's still the same kind of upgrade. Windows 1 (1), Windows 2 (2), Windows 3.x (3), Windows 95-ME (4), Windows 2000-XP (5), Windows Vista (6), Windows 7 (cheating a little, but 7). This is a release to consumers, so they were counting the main consumer releases' version numbers. If you're going to count something like 3.1, then you need to count more recent server versions (2003, 2008) and bump the version number even higher. Althepal (talk) 18:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
What you are doing is mixing different development approaches of the DOS/9X & the NT Family, where 7 belongs to! You have to count the major versions and not the derivates (e.g.: is windows 7 a server version - no! therefore exists Win srv 2008R2 with the server in the name)! Read the points above, so that all not so cling to this story NT x.x! Count the major-versions of the NT family and not the derivates - so it is logical!!
All right. That's it. Can somebody get a screenshot of command prompt in Windows 7? It should have the version number. I want this settled once and for all.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Or, an alternate source for the version number: [1].--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Heh. That's the source used in the article too.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Not the NT x.x is the important fact or the NT in the name! Why all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions! Think about it! Windows NT 3.1 was the first Windows NT and Windows 7 appears to be the series final. This was because of the ease of comprehension in comparison to DOS/Win9X-product line. Major versions have a different first digit before and after the comma. It is not important here that Windows 7 also is NT 7.0, because it is the NT family and line. Since the major versions are! Therefore again: Why are all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions. Looks at the origins of the development = NT = New Technology. So avoid look to DOS/9X in any version or derivative ala server! Does Windows Server 2008r2 called Windows 8 ;-) Who says that a product must start with version 1.0 and then 1.1 or 2.0 must come! NO ONE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
Therefore, firstly reconsider what are the major versions and then count them! So as a result the seventh Windows is Windows 7!
Look, the infobox calls for a version number, so a version number is used. I have added all of this to the FAQ. No additional discussion on the matter is necessary.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 23:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure where people are getting the idea that the version number is 7. Just because its called Win7 doesn't mean anything. Vista means to see, you only really see bluescreens (lol) Its not the 7th release, and the its not even the 7th release of NT (3.11 isn't listed above) Its just a name, the version number is 6.1 and its a 'major upgrade' to vista but only kept the 6.x for compatibility. This has been explained in the WTB article. Whats in a name? chocobogamer mine 12:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would argue that Vista has had less blue screens for me than XP, but, I don't even want to start that flame war/this is not a forum. If it's the seventh release (I have no idea if it is or not), they still made it version 6.1, so that they could cross-check compatibility (or something like that).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I can follow the argumentation above and can say the internal version has nothing todo with the number of major versions & the counting! So this has to be added to the article! Too bad the facts do not play! Version numbers after the second decimal place makes no sense. These are only small updates! Major releases are the first before and after the comma! Think of recordable as MacOsX or other developments! And again: Why all just hang so desperately to the internal version number and the server versions! It is the 7th release of the origin nt family! Count it or try to understand the numbering above!
You're not listening. The infobox calls for a version number, as in, the internal software version number. I understand that it is the seventh in the family of Windows operating systems, but it is not version 7.0. The source used ([2]) provides verification for both of these facts.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
However, I did notice that there is no mention (other than a hidden comment) of the fact that it is the seventh in the OS family. I'm not quite sure where this should be added though...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Unionhawk is 100% right. As I said, whats in a name? FF11 is an online-only game without random battles and no real ending but its still called FF11 (and its not even the 11th FF release) It should probably not be called FF11, but it is. Again, the official reason has been given to it being 6.1 (hardware/software compatibility) no arguements. jeez all this above is OR. like other people who have said that its because its the 7th generally available version - 95, 98, 98SE, Me, xp, Vista, 7 (2000 not 98SE depending on where you look). But nope, its called 7 just because. The WTB explaination is: W1, W2, W3, W4:9x/Me, W5:2K/XP, W6:Vista then W7, but internally titled 6.1 'purely' for compatibility reasons. Yes that is confusing as it should by the in-depth explaination (over xp) be Windows8 chocobogamer mine 18:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

and as also said above, the NT series theory is bogus. What about the Server releases (Server 03 was 5.2 and considered a major NT release) all theories are OR. It is just a name chocobogamer mine 18:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Server releases are based on the same kernel code base as their client counterparts (NT/NT Server, 2000/2000 Server, XP/Server 2003 and so on) plus, since 7 is a client side OS, even if ther Server line was completely separate, why would they count it in naming a client version? JasonJD48 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I think the logic was that Vista was version 6.0, so they call it Windows 7, but, for compatibility, the version number was made 6.1. I don't understand how that increases compatibility myself, but that's what the source says.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

"whats in a name?" sure that's a philosophic question, but wikipedia is for information, and if there was a reasoning for calling it "7", even if it is untrue or flawed, we deserve to know if it can be sourced who named it 7 and why it is reasoned as being the 7th windows. If the information exists, it can likely find its way to be attested here on Wikipedia. (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

omfg. this is the third time I have to tell you guys the source for all of this... [3]--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 13:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
To answer your question Unionhawk, hardware and software look at the 'major version' identifier on the OS. In this case 6.x, In xp/2K it was 5.x, hence the excellent compat with those versions, and anon, there doesnt have to be any logical reason for it being called 7. It doesn't have to even refer to anything to do with numbering (although they have explained this as myself and UH have referenced) Jeez Windows 98SE wasn't called Windows 99 even though it was released in 99. chocobogamer mine 14:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

This "Why is it 7-question" is just a marketing-issue. There is no other really logical explanation, why this one should be named "7". Also this short name somehow might symbolize a cleaned-up version after Vista was somewhat heavy and slow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So a have to break a lance. It is not just a name: It is for the seventh version. This is the only official statement from Microsoft. Only one approach, gives a clear answer. It is not the trash nash blog! It makes no sence so we see it all - he collects all windows versions ever and pushes in a doubtful and discussable order. Why you do not really discuss the NT family approach! A major version is defined by a new functionaly and innovations like the GUI - this was so all the time. And Windows Server 2008R2 is not communicated as Windows 8. Its only a derivate like the WinXp 64 version. It is like counting the "abc" with the special chars eg. a with apostroph!
"The version number was chosen to match the one of Windows 3.1, the then-latest operating environment from Microsoft, on account of the similar visual appearance of the user interface. Two editions of NT 3.1 were made available, Windows NT 3.1 and Windows NT Advanced Server. It was succeeded by Windows NT 3.5 in September 1994." So no one has to say it has to be NT 7.0.

I'm on the line with the guy of the NT approach, which only gives me a clear explanation, because it is so clear that there i do not need any source - its a self-explanation one. Sry it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
This though sounding sensible (the reasoning 2 paragraphs up for the NT3.1 numbering), is of course not true. Microsoft's own internal docs indicate that the number was picked so (a) it would not seem like a new OS, and (b) would seem (to the computer un-savvy) to be technologically un par with the Win16 line as opposed to people assuming that Win3.1 was better because it had a higher number than Windows NT 1.0 - there was a whole discussion online back in the day about them not wanting to confuse customers by using the v1.x starting point because of that. As that too is irrelevant, I will not cite references...
That, sadly is the real truth behind the NT3.1 numbering. But that is all irrelevant to this discussion.
This product is named "Windows 7" - whether because Microsoft picked a number out of a hat, had nefarious reasons for doing so, had technical reasons for doing so, were counting release numbers to come up with the number seven, whatever. It is called Windows 7.
So, my opinion is, regardless of how long this debate rages on here, it is irrelevant to the article itself in every respect - unless Microsoft clearly spells out how they came up with the name, in which case it barely (and at most) rates an anecdotal mention. Again, that is just my opinion.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to tell you guys that Microsoft released their view on a video in a net why Windows Seven is the 7th "consumer line" release of Windows family of operating _environments_. They dropped ME out of the line and counted only major versions. So reason why Microsoft calls Windows 7 seventh home consumer release is that they only counted 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista which leads us to Seven. But as we all know. Truth is that Windows NT 6.1 is 12th or 14th release of Windows for home consumers. There's before Seven at least Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, 95OSR, 98, 98SE, ME, NT3.51, NT4.0, Win2000, XP, Vista and then Seven. It all depends on perspective but I'd say that wikipedia should clarify that Windows Seven _is not_ 7th Windows to existence. Not even the 7th version or 7th distribution for whatever means. Calling Windows Seven 7th is just PR. --Dekonega (talk) 10:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

...since it was commonly known that Vista is NT6 Microsoft probably though they would score some points from public and make some distance to disaster called Vista. --Dekonega (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I just want to point out that this discussion is pointless. It's Windows 7 since MS chose to call it that. Just like they called XP Windows XP and not Windows 2002. Win95 could have been called Windows 4.0, but instead it was Windows 95. Move on with your lives! If you don't like it, don't use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The last three posts make no sence @ all! Only trash arguments. 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista - I laughed so much! The name is, because its the seventh version. Like in XP where it was for Xperience! This is not comparable with like xp or vista! Think about the major-NT-family development counting! This is the only understandable version! I also support this approach! Its self-explaning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out this video and ask for you guys to watch it. Microsoft really omitted Windows ME and Windows 2000 when counting towards 14 and they got 7 from a simple math equation. Point is that they argued Windows 7 being 7th major release of Windows for home consumers. But that's not true. Please watch this video and read the article: [4] Writer above pointed out valid point that NT line of versions shouldn't be mixed with Windows GUI program which runs on top of DOS. Windows NT is complete stand alone operating system and other Windows releases are not. --Dekonega (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

first things first. most of you wont realise that this argument is stemmed off of a previous one that its 6.1. the argument surrounds its build number being 6.1 not 7.0 and people were changing the build number on article to 7.0. then asking why if its build 6.1 why is it called 7. the simple answer is it just is. it seems even MS have different theories on it so my little 'whats in a name' seems to be the answer. its just a name. microsoft 'skipping' 98/se and me is comical. 98 was certainly in the day and maybe even up to vista considered a major release. all theories dont stand up to scrutineering. the closest is the major consumer versions, but as i said. 98, but if they exclude that then in 10 years time we must assume 7 will be considered a minor version as its 6.1. the truth makes no sense. compatibility is the reason its 6.1 but called 7. i prefer the idea that it comes from the start of the cleaner more coloured (home user) frontends (3, 95 98 me xp vista 7) (which of course coincide with the more familiar windows wavy flag like logo) but its only another theory. microsoft are explaining their own unmatched ideas chocobogamer mine 20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Microsoft Windows department counted 13 Windows releases and came up with name Windows 14 but Microsoft Marketing & PR department didn't like it and divided it with two to make it look younger yet reliable software release. ;) No way! :D But honestly it's really weird. While Vista was completely new NT Windows Seven is just something build on top of Vista so it's entirely correct decision to call it NT6.1. And it's not because of the compability because truth is that Windows Seven is NT 6.1 because it's built on top of Vista which is NT 6.0. This is just like in case of Windows 2000 and Windows XP where 2k is NT5.0 and XP is NT5.1.
At German Wikipedia people have came up with few good theories why 14th Windows release is called Windows Seven...
Counting NT releases:
  1. Windows NT 3.1x
  2. Windows NT 3.5x
  3. Windows NT 4.0
  4. Windows NT 5.0 (2000)
  5. Windows NT 5.1 (XP)
  6. Windows NT 6.0 (Vista)
  7. Windows NT 6.1 (Seven)
  • Major problem is that OS/2 forms numbers 1-3 and there are other missing releases like NT5.2 which was server only release. Limiting this line of thinking only to desktop/workstation releases.
Counting major numbers:
  1. Windows 1.0
  2. Windows 2.0 (Windows/286)
  3. Windows 3.x and Windows NT 3.x (Windows 3.1)
  4. Windows 4.x (Windows 95, 95 OCR, 98, 98 SE, ME)
  5. Windows 5.x (Windows 2000, Windows XP)
  6. Windows 6.0 (Windows Vista)
  7. Windows 6.1 (Windows Seven)
  • Problem with that one is that Seven should be named "Windows Six".
Counting OS family members:
  1. OS/2 1.0
  2. OS/2 2.0
  3. Windows NT 3.x
  4. Windows NT 4.0
  5. Windows NT 5.0 (2000, XP, Server 2003)
  6. Windows NT 6.0 (Vista, Server 2008)
  7. Windows NT 6.1 (Seven, Server 2008 R1)
  • Problem with that one is that Seven should be named "Windows Six".
Counting largely known home releases:
  1. Windows 3.0
  2. Windows 95
  3. Windows 98
  4. Windows ME
  5. Windows XP
  6. Windows Vista
  7. Windows Seven
  • Most believable answer to this puzzle. I think this is the truth but it has problems like forgetting versions 1.0 and 2.0
We pretty much know that Microsoft counts them like this:
  1. Windows 1.0
  2. Windows 2.0
  3. Windows 3.0
  4. Windows Windows 95
  5. Windows Windows XP
  6. Windows Windows Vista
  7. Windows Windows Seven

So we can safely forget that why Seven is Seven as long as we write into wikipedia that Windows Seven is at least 14th Windows release and is NT6.1 and Microsoft claims it to be 7th consumer line Windows release ment for home users and alike. But this is like throwing dices. There are few hundred combinations of different ways to get end result 7. --Dekonega (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dekonega, your major mistake with the OS/2 reasoning is that OS/2 2.0 was IBM's release. There was supposed to be a Microsoft/IBM version, but that never got released under the name OS/2. It was turned into Windows NT 3.x as MS OS/2 only formed #1-1 with a planned 2.
That aside, I'd wager money that it is none of the above, and probably not whatever marketing reason Microsoft is currently spinning (like this claim above "major releases... 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, XP and Vista" - Windows 95 was not a major release. Windows 98 on the other hand was. Win95 was still mostly Win3.1 with a little borrowed eye candy (check out IBM EWS WPSfWIN one day to see just how easy adding an OO acting shell to Win3.1 to make it Win95 like is) Win95 was still Win3.1 with some 32 bit extensions on top of DOS, while Win98 added a lot more into the 32bit arena).
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 08:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I am really bad at explaining this. OS/2 was Microsoft and IBM project where first two releases were worked together. OS/2 3.0 was IBM's project but they moved it to Microsoft which on the other hand broke the deal and released OS/2 3.0 as NT 3.0. And besides most of these are not my theories except of the one where counting starts from "Windows 3.0" and we forget existence of the "Windows 1.0" and "Windows 2.0". I disagree with you about Windows 95 not being major release. It was huge release and extremely major. Windows 98 on the other hand was more like fixed version of the Windows 95.
Besides my point was that there is not a one single explanation there and we should just write to wikipedia that "Windows 7 is 14th major Windows release even though the name implies that it's the 7th". --Dekonega (talk) 12:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The people at Microsoft would disagree as to the naming reasons. Their reasons stated to us (CompUSA) were the ones posted. Yes, NT 3 started based off the OS/2 3 project. Yes, disks even existed of betas indicating such. No, that is not the reason they used the number. Or they later tried to downplay the tie-ins to OS/2. Regardless, that is not their official reason as disseminated to us. Which is also the reason why it was released as Windows NT 3.1 and not Windows NT 3.0
Additionally, having been a programmer for years, having been both Microsoft's Windows support rep AND IBM's OS/2 support rep AND having been privy to both companies' beta codes, AND having knowledge of what is "behind the scenes" in both OS's, popular opinion aside, Windows 95, while seeming like a major release to the public, was not a major release and was very heavily dependant on DOS - almost as much as Win3.1 and earlier versions. Win98 was the first version to end much of those dependencies, even though the look of the two were similar and the look of Win95 was "drastically" different than Win3.1. The Win95 GUI functionality is something that IBM programmers created for Win3.1 (specifically for WinOS/2, but should work under Win3.1 as well) in under a megabyte of code (except it worked better no less).
As for it being the 14th major release, do we go with your count? Microsoft's count? Your reasoning? Mine? Someone else's? Even though I may be inclined to agree it is far from the 7th major release, and maybe is at or near the 14th, how is that citable? Who do we cite? Microsoft's marketing material which grossly contradicts itself with each new release? Microsoft's version numbers, which due to the amount of additional appropriated code in the NT code base (DEC to be more specific) indicate that using the never released (as) MS OS/2 v3 would also be inaccurate?
See the point? How can such a claim be made with nothing citable that makes sense or isnt contradicted ad infinitum elsewhere (often numerous times by Microsoft themselves)? Either that, or that one line you propose would require an entire paragraph much like the discussion being had here... something akin to (loosely paraphrased and severely chopped for brevity): "Windows 7, by Dekonega's and others' count is the 14th major release of... But by Microsoft's count, based on pre-release marketing material during the Win98 days and counting forward would be... But by Microsoft's current stance would be... but by Microsoft's internal version numbering would be... but by 32bit release count would be... but by 32bit home use capable versions (as defined by...) would be... but when counting the never released MS OS/2 v3 that NT is only partially based on would be..."
That is why I think it is really totally irrelevant when there is no citable information that is in agreement. We (you, me, numerous others) cant agree on it. Microsoft themselves backpedaled on this numerous times in the past, present and probably the future (releasing different answers depending on who asks the question even).
The closest to most accurate statement would simply be "Windows 7 is the 7th major release based off the Windows NT product line" (NT 3.1, 3.5, 4.0, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 - skipping 3.51 which had "two" major enhancements... PPC version (ok... 1 major enhancement) and support for interoperating with Windows 95 (which actually didnt come with it, bringing it to zero major enhancements)).
Thus, on their 32bit and 32/64bit OS line, it would be the 7th major release (skipping the debate over it just being a fixed version of Vista).
Regardless, a paragraph explaining why it is the nth major release seems a "little" ludicrous when no one can agree on the value of n.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 18:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
As stated on the Windows NT Family page: "The first release was MS Windows NT 3.1 (1993), numbered "3.1" to match the consumer Windows version, which was followed by NT 3.5 (1994)" - though no citation is linked to that text, hundreds of such statements can be found online - which jive with my memory of the reasoning Microsoft provided us at CompUSA.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 18:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

how this discussion is still going on i do not know. however the one thats described as most believable (Counting largely known home releases):

      1. Windows 3.0
      2. Windows 95
      3. Windows 98
      4. Windows ME
      5. Windows XP
      6. Windows Vista
      7. Windows Seven

The bit about forgetting 1.x and 2.x is not necessarily true. My theories: 1. Windows 3.x is the earliest recognisable version to any end user. The earlier ones are blocky and more DOS-like. 2. Win3.x had a level of kernel compatibility right the way through to XP (which itself is available in 7 pro and ultimate). 3. Win 3 was the first to use the more familiar framed windows logochocobogamer mine 20:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Look, at this point, we're getting into OR territory. Let's just use what the source says:

(emphasis not in original) The source says that they called it Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows, so that's what we say. Truth ≠ verifiability.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 03:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

yes, but in no way shape or form is it the 7th release which is why ppl are arguing. even the NT theory is wrong as 3.11 was considered major yadiyaya chocobogamer mine 22:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow this thread's long. Look: we have a source. It backs up a claim. It's "Windows 7" because it's the seventh release, plain and simple. Airplaneman talk 18:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Airplaneman: Incorrect. It is "Windows 7" because that is what Microsoft named it. Plain and simple. There is no other publicly known reason why it is named "Windows 7" - anything else is either their marketing reason (which does no jive with any other statement they have made in the past) or speculation on our part.
The biggest complaint I have seen about Wikipedia is the inaccuracy of the content on it. I believe that NOT to be true. I believe the problem lies in the inaccuracy of the portrayal of the content.
A pertinent "for instance" would be the statement above on the reason Windows 7 was named Windows 7. I can cite numerous Microsoft statements from the past that rip it apart. It is entirely untrue in any sense, no matter how anyone counts (unless, like in the conversations above, people use whatever caveat they deem fit so that the count adds up to "7").
Thus, as a for instance about incorrect portrayal, to include something like that in the article without it leading to a false conclusion, it should be cited as "John Doe, (insert title here) claims that... (his quote)" - emphasis mine to point out the key word in the statement.
This would be similar to claiming/citing that Windows Vista is "the fastest version of Windows ever" - which is another (verbatim) claim Microsoft made, which also is untrue except in the most retarded, unused scenarios. That statement too is patently false, but still could be included as a reference to whomever said it.
In one method, the statement is misleading and false, cited or not. Adding that so-and-so claims it, on the other hand, does not indicate a bias on Wikipedia's part that such a statement is true - it just indicates that someone at Microsoft claims such.
Which brings us full circle. Microsoft's bogus reasoning and statement aside, this release is named "Windows 7"
This debate is truly kinda absurd. I can go buy an older Firebird, which is "really" just a Camaro of the same year... nonetheless, it is still a Firebird, because that is what it was named. This is "Windows 7" - regardless of the true, unreleased reason for the naming.
RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If we cited it as "claims that...", then we would have weasel wording problems...--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 20:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why everyone is trying to justify the 7 in the name by picking (random) released versions of Windows so that Win 7 is the 7th release. It is NOT the 7th release by any stretch of the imagination. The only justification is that the version number of WinXP was 5.1, Vista was 6.0, and Win7 would have been 7.0 but they decided to use 6.1 for compatibility. Technically, WinXP could have been 6.0 since Win2000 was 5.0 but Microsoft didn't make it that way. There are far more than simply seven versions of Windows. Nyr56 (talk) 00:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just going around in circles. I'm just saying what the source says. The source says it, so that's what we should put, if we even mention that it's the seventh release at all (which I'm not certain is necessary).--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 00:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Looking around I found Mike Nash's explanation for the quote you posted.
If that's their logic then it doesn't matter what we say I guess. Not counting XP as a new release since it was 5.1 but counting Win7 as a release is contradictory IMO. That said, I don't think putting that it's the seventh release in the article will add anything but confusion. --NYR56 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Here endith the lesson. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0. Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility. That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.

This is like the ultimate in double dutch and comical words "quite simple numbering" pah. OK lets look at what he said exactly: W1.0 (1) W2.0 (2) W3.0 (3) W9x/4.x (4) W2k/WXP (5.x) WV (6) W7 (7) He is not explaining how 7 is 7, he's explaining how 7 is 8 because you can't say XP is as major a release as 7 and then exclude it from a list that 7 is on, thats just nonsense.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility [...] So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases This is the double dutch comment, He is explaining that XP should in reality be 6, so how can 7 be the 7th release? Per his 'reasoning' that 7 should have a major version in reality, as XP supposedly should too, it should therefore be v8: W2k (5) WXP (6) WV (7) W7 (8)

It is not worth including a rationale for it being called 7 as the reasons are illogical. Again, this conversation came because someone changed the version number from 6.1 to 7 and said blahblah cant say 6.1. At the end of the day, Microsoft have a habit of nonsensical version numbers, they skipped 4 versions of Office Word so that its version number matched its Mac version (although it supposedly was really to match the competition), they skipped 6(??) versions of Windows Live Messenger. Their numbering makes no sense and I think in all honesty it was just 7 for the sake of it and theyre trying to explain something unexplainable chocobogamer mine 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not really version 7. They aren't going to change it now, certainly not based on what's written here. It's just a name. Who cares?Andy Johnston (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I offer an opinion? Well actually, probably fact. Firstly, Windows 7 is not the 7th release of Windows. Secondly, Windows 7 is an incremental upgrade from Vista, that's what gives with the slight version number increase. Why they didn't call it 6.1 is because it's not good for marketing. Just like in the old days when they had names like "General Industries". Thirdly, 7 is a lucky number. Compared, of course, to 13 which is an unlucky number, which Microsoft decided to skip with Microsoft Office. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This is just like how Windows 98 is not 14 times better than Windows 7. :) NoNews! 04:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez, this has gone on too long. First off, as has been stated, Win7 is NOT the seventh version of Windows. Its all marketing. Lets face it, the OS's people remember are Windows 3/3.1, 95, 98, ME, XP, and Vista. So from the consumer standpoint, Windows 7 is the seventh version of Windows. Secondly, Microsoft wanted to get as far away from Vista as they could. so there would be no way Microsoft would use "Windows 6", as Vista was the NT Kernal's six revision. Stop trying to make sense out of a marketing decision. -- (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, perhaps they should have waited when the REAL NT 7.0 comes out and call that version "Windows 7". Now there'd surely be some mix-up in the future when NT 7.0 is released (unless Microsoft decides to skip it). NoNews! 09:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It IS called Windows 7 - there can be no doubt about that. Whether you find it interesting to know or work out why it's called that, or even to argue that it shouldn't be is irrelevant to an article about Windows 7. It's a name. Microsoft could have called it Windows 2009, or Windows 14, or Windows NT 6.1, or Windows Fluffybunnykins - it really doesn't matter.

Similarly irrelevant is what anyone thinks of the Version number. It is what it is whether you do or do not understand why, whether you do or do not agree with the number or even whether there is a consistent and universal agreement within Microsoft about what the version should have been. If a program makes a system call to find out the OS version, and the answer 6.1 comes back then it IS 6.1.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, look.

Windows 1 is 1

Windows 2 is 2

Windows 3 is 3

Windows NT 3.x family IS 3.

Windows NT 4 is 4

Also, Windows 9x and ME is 4.

Windows 2000 is 5

Windows XP is 5.1

Windows Vista is 6.

Windows 7 is 7 but 6.1 is for compatibly reasons. (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, just to conclude, really, it's called Windows 7, not Windows OS 7, or Windows v. 7.0 or Windows 7.0. Just simply Windows 7. That proves that it's a marketing ploy. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum. Keep it on topic.

Time zones

I just moved this here from the Criticism of Microsoft Windows article, because it belongs here... If it was properly sourced, I'd drop it in the main article, but it's not, so here goes:

Original research|date=November 2009
Notability|section|date=November 2009
Windows 7 doesn't include two existing time zones UTC+12:45 (Chatham Islands) and UTC+14 (Line Islands).

--DanielPharos (talk) 22:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, it was put back without the '7'... --DanielPharos (talk) 16:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-autocomfirmed edit to protected page

Please insert the following template into the Marketing section:

PerthMod (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 I've used empty-section instead of expand-section -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 09:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Bare ULRs

Can someone update reference 17 to include the following filled out cite template?

<ref name="msJustifiesWin7NamingDecision">{{cite web | url = | title = Microsoft Justifies Its Windows 7 Naming Decision | author = Alex Castle | date = 2008-10-15 | publisher = [[Maximum PC]] | accessdate = 2009-11-18 }}</ref>

I'd do it myself but the page is currently locked. (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done PerthMod (talk) 09:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reference 18 is broken

Cite 18 is broken[5]. It gives a 404 error. I checked[6], but it is not archived. (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

An alternative reference has been found.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Windows 7

Even no word about criticism? it may be cause POV template :). No word about its EULA limitations, what about the FSF campaign? Netanel h (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a WP:RS. Just because something's on the Internet doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I've only heard positive reviews about Windows 7. The main people who don't like it have never tried it, because they can't afford to upgrade their computers from XP to 7. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 05:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The same is true for Vista SP1 as well. :) Leo Natan (talk) 11:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely, for a unbiased view, criticism should be presented the viewers as well. I really enforce that this article should have a criticism section, as almost all others articles do. It could be very brief, just summarizing mains critics the product have, possibly pointing to a main article Criticism of Windows Vista (as all other windows do have) and to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. It maybe pertinent to also has reference to Criticism of Microsoft. DeStilaDo (talk) 13:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Not every article has a criticism section and for example there isn't one for Linux, Ubuntu (operating system), Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Snow Leopard. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
After reading the FSF article I would say that it is not a reliable source. The FSF article makes some statements that are just wrong (that there is a version of Windows 7 which limits the number of applications that can run), a lot of the article is personal opinion, it makes several questionable claims, and at the end it goes into a rant against Windows NT regarding an issue that happened over a decade ago. Also I noticed that none of the criticism is specifically about Windows 7 with the criticism being either against Microsoft or proprietary software. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I tried to add a section called criticisms of windows 7 but it keeps being undone by Microsoft coprorate schills. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The original list of ""criticisms"" is a laughable laundry list of complaints. To paraphrase: 'It uses more of my HD than the previous version did!' 'It takes more resources than the previous version did!' 'It doesn't run on older hardware like the previous version did!' 'It doesn't let me use software from ten years ago like the previous version did!' 'It costs more than the previous version did!'
I really don't like being nonconstructive, but, seriously. These aren't technical criticisms these are complaints about the changes that MS made to better organize the UI, take advantage of expanding HD capacity and new hardware technologies, and improve the experience and usability on newer computers.
The MS pricing scheme is ridiculous, the number of "Editions" is staggering and unnecessary, and the DRM is intrusive and should be up to third party media providers to create(Or, preferably, not create) and should not be integrated into any OS anywhere. But, by no means, does that make your list anywhere near 'Criticisms of Windows 7' as much as it makes it 'Things that some people think are poop about Windows 7'
Complaint: an expression of discontent, regret, pain, censure, resentment, or grief.
Criticism: a work that sets out to evaluate or analyze. Turbolinux999 (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead cites are no more

God this is my second post today! I am going to get rid of the bare URL's tag at the top of the page as I have corrected the dead link(18) and have got rid of the bare URL cite (19) if anyone thinks they have found better cites then feel free to replace them. But, as I have already said it is going it means nothing anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super wiki editor (talkcontribs) 15:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it really does us no good to only have the title. I'm going to go through all the references and change them to the appropriate citation template.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail Review 15:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Something should be mentioned about the inability to upgrade from XP

Unlike Vista users, you can't do a straight upgrade from XP to 7. Instead, you must do a complete install which means backing up all your data and reinstalling all your programs. Here are a few sources we can use for the article: Houston Chronicle, Computer World, PC World. I'd do it myself but the article is currently locked. (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the protection has expired now, so feel free to update the page. Also, you might want to update Windows 7 Editions as well. (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added a couple sentences about the upgrade path for XP users. I wasn't sure where to put it, so I created a new section called Setup. (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Moved your sentences to the "Features Removed from Windows 7" as this is where they mainly belong. Leo Natan (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)



If you want the page unprotected, ask at the requests for page protection page.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  228° 14' 45" NET   15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

New Windows 7 Screenshot

The one currently being used has a date before the RTM. That could confuse many people and make them think that the section has conflicting information. I have provided a picture myself that will hopefully provide a much better view. Here are a few reasons as to why it needs to be replaced:

-Even though it shows the start menu, it should just provide a screenshot of the first thing you see when you get to the desktop, not the start menu (That can be pictured somewhere else) -Cursor is fully shown compared to the current one -Unconfusing date compared to the current one -Other minor and aesthetic changes such as the time

Unfortunately, I am a beginner user and have not yet familiarized myself with this kind of stuff.

Here is the (hopefully able to be) replacement picture: PNG: [7] JPEG: [8] BMP: [9] GIF: [10]

KryticalEffect (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the articles for other Windows versions and they all seem to show the start menu, so for the purposes of consistancy it is probably best left on. (talk) 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


This is not a npov article. Look at the reception section. There is no mention of the extensive hardware compatibility and performance issues. I'm not a Linux/Mac fanboi, I'm an unhappy Windows 7 user. I'd take an hour and create an honest and accurate criticism section, but it would be reverted within an hour.

After articles like this, I really question how Wikipedia is more accurate than my grandma's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I added a Criticism section and added hardware compatibility and performance sections with verifiable references. It was reverted within an hourWhytehorse1413 (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, there is no "extensive hardware compatibility and performance issues" with Windows 7, especially if you not count driver issues. Could you point to some good sources? If you can do that, there at least is a chance it might make it into the article. --DanielPharos (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, it was Vista that was a pain in the ass with compatability issues. Everyone I know that uses 7 hasn't had any issues, beyond one who was seeing if his older parts would work for kicks. Are you sure you're not using Vista? -Tainted Conformity Chat 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've used the beta since December 2008 and the RC since May/June 2009, and the RTM since this November, and I haven't encountered any hardware compatibility issues, nor any performance issues. Like the previous responders, I'm pretty unclear on what you refer to. Even my old 3G USB modem whichi was made for XP and was somehow compatible with Vista, works excellent with Win7 - a lot better than with Vista, even. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
It is correct that Windows 7 is compatible with nearly every hardware you could run under Vista. See the accordantpress-releases.
There additionally is this tool with which you can check this before you upgrade.
If you don't, it's your problem; but nothing to be discussed in WP. - (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Driver level, Vista and 7 typically use the same install, as the OS's are so simmilar underneath the hood. The driver problems Vista had were more due to the new architecture and driver developers needing time to adjust. Then again, remember when XP first came out? Nothing I had worked! After a few months, new drivers solved the problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Beware of blatant misinformation on several sources about the 'superiority' and 'uniqueness' of windows 7

I urge all wikipedians reviewing sources for this software to be aware of the following facts: (mainly related to teenagers having no idea of recent software history)

- Windows XP was NOT a 'totally unique/major release', it was based on 2000. However, I've read several sites saying 'win7 is amazing, it's a major release like windows xp'.

- Windows XP was cursed and hated for at least 1 year of its release, this is forgotten by the kids.

- This is obviously a Vista "RC2" or something like that; they could as well release it as service pack (but of course it wouldn't be a cash cow/vista brandname was tarnished) - it would be easily possible obviously, they've done way bigger changes, anyone remembers that hideous and huge service pack on windows 95 to apply integrated iexplorer?.

So stop licking microsoft ass - pardon the french but I heard wikipedia is uncensored - and realize 7 is a polished vista, just as XP was a 'pop 2000', just as 98 was a refined 95, just as Vista was an unfinished product just as ME was a bloated and buggy 98, etc. Check your sources before believing 17 year old fanboys. ok tx bye.-- (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

@Point 3: No, that's not possible/doable. For instance, Vista doesn't support WDDM1.1 drivers, and there's a lot of other changes to the kernel, UAC, etc. which would/could break backwards compatibility or backwards "compatible experience" (people wouldn't update because they get "more annoying messages", and thus miss out on important security patches etc.).
Also, if you say Win7 is just Vista take two, then where do you draw the line? Win95 was just Win 3.11, but they changed the user interface (done that in 2000->XP too). Windows is just DOS with a GUI, etc. Because just about all software is based on previous versions, when does something become "new"/"a new major release"? In this case, I think people decided to follow Microsoft's own version number scheme. Vista = 6.1 Win7 = 7, so it's a major release.
As for carefully checking sources to filter out people that don't know what they are talking about: I completely agree! --DanielPharos (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"Win95 was just Win 3.11, but they changed the user interface"
I am staggered that people still make that sort of claim. Win 95 was significantly different to Win 3.x on pretty much every level. Have a browse through "Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King - Microsoft Press 1994 ISBN: 1 55615 626 X —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Agree with above; Win 3.1->Win95 conversion projects were some of the hardest I've ever worked on personally. Heck, my workplace still has a legacy 3.1 machine, as a major piece of software was too dificult to port to 95... Seven in a lot of ways is Vista Lite. Microsoft fixed the most offending problems of Vista [Driver stability via WDDM, UAC, etc], but under the hood, the OS still operates the same, hence why most driver installs for Seven are a combined Vista/Seven installer. Using the "Major Release" argument, ME was a major release, and XP was NOT, because it was the same kernal verion of ME! -- (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Very very little software is new and unique, every new version is based to varying degrees on its predecessors. What constitutes attibutes like 'unique' and 'superior' is a matter of opinion, some liked XP out of the gate, others feel it didn't hit its stride until SP1 or SP2, and yes XP is built on the codebase and kernel of Windows 2000, but it was very much more developed, both to incorporate new technologies and to adapt it to inherit the comsumer OS role from the 9x line. I would also add that I know many smart and knowledgable 17 year olds, I don't generalize by age, and I ignore ignorant 'fanboys' of all types and ages (including the many Linux and Apple ones out there)JasonJD48 (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. There is a difference between new version, and repackaged update. I got a trial version of XP after using 98/2000 for awhile, and while I hated it until I found that XP could run videos better (98 had some lag for all videos with DivX), but yes it was definitely a new version. Windows 7 is a hyped repackage of Vista. I notice the same weird functionality, the same user-unfriendliness and lack of backwards-compatibility (Windows 7 is a bit updated, but alot of programs simply wouldn't work on Vista), and the same licensing scamming from Vista. And I don't even wanna think about whether everything from Vista onward might have spyware that reports all you do to potential employers. Isn't it time private citizens had the right to look at or do whatever they wanted in their own free time, provided it doesn't actually hurt someone? What a concept.Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Windows 7, if at all mimicking anything, is more to Mac OS X Snow Leopard than it is to Windows Vista. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not discuss this, as it's not relevant to Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a forum.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Official numbers are in. 60 million licenses sold.

Check this out. Perhaps someone can edit this in somewhere if appropriate.

As part of that announcement, Microsoft reported that it has sold more than 60 million Windows 7 licenses to date. Rasmasyean (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC) hi i am amit chaudhary it is very efective windows. my email id - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. But rather a forum of improving the article. Western Pines (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jwroosch (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

technologiser should be technologizer


18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.".

should be

18. ^ "Version numbers of Windows.".

hope this helps

 changed Thanks. PerthMod (talk) 08:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


This section needs some serious cleanup. What does the marketing have to do with what version what users should run? Why is there a "However" in the section, which serves to echo one of the pointless complaints by people who like to spell Microsoft with a $? (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

My main goal in reading the article was to find constructive and solid reasons to upgrade to Windows 7, but this not-very-relevant section was about as close as it came... I don't know if I'd say the section needs cleanup as much as a more neutral point of view, but overall the article was a disappointment. (That also includes two related articles linked to this one. I still don't have a good reason to buy from Microsoft--but that's never stopped them from forcing me to use their software anyway.) Shanen (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Microsoft never forced anyone to use their software. If you have specific ideas on how to improve the article or a section, please provide your thoughts here, or better yet open up the article and edit away ~~ GB fan ~~ 03:46, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The Infobox

In the infobox, why does it say "October 22, 2009; 4 month(s) ago"? Why not just "October 22, 2009", we don't need the "4 month(s) ago" part. That just looks weird. (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a template used in many places to help the reader see how old a program is Tedickey (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It's an automated template. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 07:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. How do I fix this? (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Now it looks even more weird. The OS was released on October 22, 2009. That was five months ago. The infobox still says "4 month(s) ago". This really should be removed. How do I do it? (talk) 11:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Editorial Content

Repositing Gartenberg's quote as a question at the bottom of the Antitrust section is an editorial comment and should be removed in the interest of neutrality. Kuritsubaji 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuritsubaji (talkcontribs)

Notation of Current Version

IMHO, the fact that Windows 7 is the current version of Windows being sold by Microsoft is relevant to this article. However, when I have inserted that information, it has twice been reverted. I still believe that it is relevant to include, but I don't want to get into an edit war over it. So I'd like to know what other people think. Ithizar (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Whats in a Name! It works much better than Vista and thats more important!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

New SSD Support Features

We need to add information on the new SSD support features. There are a number of articles covering this in pretty good detail.

I see there is a separate article on Features new to Windows 7 # Solid state drives that may be a better place for the details. In that case we just need to put something on this page about SSDs and link to that article. If I get a chance I will come back to do this myself after I complete other updates I have in process on the Storage articles. § Music Sorter § (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

windows 7 service pack 1

come on people windows 7 sp1 is available on microsoft no more leaked things please update the article thanks plaease do it i always come here to read the latest things about this

Hmm well, as far as I know, it hasn't been publicly released, only as a technet subscriber exclusive beta. Ffgamera - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I have added information as to some of the notable (for general users) updates SP1 will provide in tables at the top of this article for anyone interested in a quick overview! :) (talk) 23:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sadly, it's been removed. Can't be bothered to put it in again folks, sorry! The View History tab shows user GB fan removed it as "this is not a forum to discuss windows 7 it is for discussing improvements to the article". Based on this reasoning can anyone explain how HALF this entire discussion page being devoted to people just querying why it is called Windows 7 has such relevance to the article? (I mean, yes, there was confusion raised in the IT media about it: but come on, enough to warrant HALF this page in discussion?) I can't see how that remains yet my highlights on Service Pack 1 is pulled. Ho-hum. Anyone who is interested can find Microsoft's official documents with the details here. (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
P.S., it may be worth noting that while it has been reported in the IT media that "Service Pack 1 will not, for Windows 7, include any new features, only bug-fixes" the documents do suggest it will install both the "Windows NT Backup Restore Utility" (KB974674) and the "Microsoft .NET Framework 4" (KB982671). Both are listed in the SP1 RC spreadsheet. Surely this is of some note? (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
A good gateway to getting (or refusing) SP1 is Service Pack 1 (SP1) for Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7, which has links to scads of documentation. In case there is no drive image to restore to pre-SP1, you may be able to uninstall Windows 7 Service Pack 1 (SP1). There really ought to be an article on SP1, rather than a redirect to this skimpy section of the Win 7 article -- something for someone else to do, pretty clearly. - (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Service packs are not that notable. I feel the current description is sufficient.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Neither you nor I expect to adapt installwindows7sp1 into the article. - (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Article Layout

I propose an easier to read article layout as follows:

  1. Main paragraph, keep as-is
  2. Hardware Requirements->Move physical memory limits here
  3. Features->Move editions here
  4. Criticisms
  5. History-> Move service packs, removed features, development, Antitrust regulatory attention, and reception here. Also move Marketing to a subsection of reception.

I think it may also make sense to just make a separate article for History of Windows 7 because it's getting rather lengthy.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 08:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do yo feel the criticism needs a section of its own? The criticism is just a part of the reception of the operating system. There are both positive and negative reception and criticism is just negative reception. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 10:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel that this is the standard format that I've seen in wiki articles and throughout the web when talking about operating systems. If you want, you can call it Pros and Cons but "Features and Criticisms" is more polite so as not to offend anyone. I think that using "reception" instead of "criticisms/cons" is misleading and is generally a weasel word used by advertisers.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Many operating system articles do not have a criticism section and for example there isn't one for Linux, Ubuntu (operating system), Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Snow Leopard. As such I do not see why Windows 7 needs to have a section specifically for criticism when criticism can simply be added to the relevant section in the article. Also any criticism needs to be both reliably sourced and directly related to Windows 7. The criticism section that you added to the article had no sources, contained personal opinion, and the vast majority of the criticism was not directly related to Windows 7. Also as someone who upgraded a computer from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows 7 I can say for a fact that you don't have to wipe the hard disk drive so one of the statements was simply wrong.
I don't understand how you can upgrade from a 32 to 64 bit operating system unless you're running on a 64 bit processor and using some kind of processor workaround when on 32 bit so maybe the wipe has more to do with the file-system which, in your case, would be more modern because you're running a build for IA64 or AMD64 and so it has NTFS which can be upgraded directly but maybe people running fat32 can't? I was just adding the criticisms laid forth by other editors so if it's incorrect you can remove it.
As for the criticisms of other operating systems, you're welcome to add that if you like. I personally haven't been able to find much to criticize about Linux and maybe OSX deserves a section. On the other hand, I don't see 500 references in the Linux section which all point to payola reviews and the article doesn't read like an ad...Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
The information in the criticism section you added lacks reliable sources which is the biggest problem. The information added to Wikipedia has to come from reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability provides information on that subject. In my opinion there are other issues as well in terms of factuality, neutrality, and personal opinion. Also there is not a consensus that the article needs a criticism section for Windows 7. There is already a reception section and in my opinion considering Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Ubuntu (operating system) put information from negative reviews in their reception section I do not see why the same can not be done with the Windows 7 article. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Well I got the price directly from I got the hardware requirements directly from this article... Do we really need a reference to know that win 7 has DRM? I think you're just making up false excuses to justify removing valid criticisms and prevent readers from obtaining knowledge.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't need a source other than Microsoft to say what price Windows 7 sells for, or the hardware requirements or that is has DRM. We do thought need a source from an independent reliable source to say that is a criticism of Windows 7. There is a huge difference between it has DRM and, because it has DRM, people have criticized the operating system. The first one, it has DRM, is just a neutral statement of fact. When you put that same statement in a criticism section it says that someone believes that having DRM is a bad thing. This needs a source because this is someones opinion and we need to know who's opinion it is. It is the same as the positive reviews that are in the reception section, if all we had was that someone said it was a "big improvement" over Windows Vista without any source we couldn't evaluate the statement. Both sides need reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 04:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You just undid an entire section with dozens of references because you're too lazy to go read about DRM. You're vandalizing the article. Please excuse yourself from further editing the article.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 02:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Please get your facts straight before you accuse people of things. I removed the section yesterday because at the time it was completely unsourced to any source that actually said there criticisms. Then after you replaced it with some sources I added fact tags and other maintenance tags to specific statements that I did not believe were adequately sourced. Then you removed all of the tags that I placed as excessive without addressing a single one. I then came back and read every source and gave a detailed explanation below about my thoughts as to the sources. Then another editor removed/moved information and gave a detailed explanation below as to why. If you disagree with our actions you are free to ask for mediation or use other dispute resolution avenues. The other thing you could do is try to address the concerns we have raised below. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Also Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies". Currently I see no explanation given for why the NPOV tag was added and that is something that needs to be addressed soon since the NPOV tag is a temporary measure. --GrandDrake (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I feel that this article lacks factual information about win 7 from a neutral point of view. I came here to read this article and learn about the OS, but instead I was mazed through a disinformation campaign, left knowing nothing and utterly frustrated after reading the article. Hence the request for a new article layout. It's NPOV because there is no critcism section and numerous people have pointed it out. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 18:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Besides the issue of adding a criticism section what specific parts of the article do you consider disinformation? --GrandDrake (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I think the article layout makes it difficult to find information. I feel that putting a giant section called development at the head puts a lot of people off when a simple "Windows 7 is written in C, C++, and assembly." is sufficient. Most of the information is historical in nature and needs to be in a history section. Why do we have a "goals" section? It's just more history. I like that there is a features section but I hate prose for it. It should be a small prose followed by a table with the different versions and their features. Antitrust regulatory attention is more history. The editions section should be merged into features as it is a natural fit. Reception should be changed to criticisms because reception means receiving and criticism means the judgement (using analysis and evaluation) of the merits and faults of the actions or work of another. You could move all the stuff about how it was received to the history section. As the article sits, there is absolutely no criticism of win 7 and several wikipedians have pointed that out on this page. .Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the current structure layout does make sense. The development of Windows 7 was incredibly complicated which is why it has its own subarticle and I don't think it would make sense to reduce the development section to a single sentence. As for the matter of prose in the features section most of the features require an explanation and I don't really see how a chart could be used to replace the prose in that section. Note that there is a chart for the different editions which can be found in the Windows 7 editions article. Also a reception section can be used for both positive and negative reviews while a criticism section has a negative connotation for any statements put into that section. As for the allegation that "Microsoft corporate schills" are undoing your changes please see Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Criticism section

Since the maintenance tags I put in this section were removed as excessive tagging and other comments I thought I would raise the issue here rather than readding them again.

Maintenance tags I added and why:

This edit:
Added a {{fact}} tag to the GUI interface comment. There was no reference that said anyone criticized 7 for these changes.
Added a {{who}} tag to the Made in India line. It says that critics said that it was a problem, the source in the entry only confirms that engineers in India helped design the software. The source does not explain who criticized that aspect.
Added a {{fact}} tag to the made in India entry. There is no source for the statements that criticized 7.
This edit added a fact tag to the Editions entry. There is no source that any reliable source has criticized Microsoft for having 6 editions.
This edit:
Added a {{fact}} tag to the Physical disk space entry. There is no source that anyone has criticized 7 for using to much disk space.
Added a {{fact}} tag to the Price entry. At the time there was only a reference from Microsoft that sourced hat 7 costs $219.99. There was no source that anyone has criticized Microsoft for the price. This has since been fixed by moving information out of the reception section.
This edit added a {{fact}} tag to the Hardware requirements entry. There is no source that anyone has criticized Microsoft for this.

Of these only one has been fixed as of the time I am writing this but all these tags were removed because the were Excessive.

There are other entries that need additional citations also.

The reference on DRM does not discuss Windows 7 at all at least on the page that is linked.
The compatibility with older hardware entry is sourced to a Microsoft webpage. The webpage does not discuss anyone criticizing Microsoft for not making the new software backwards compatible with all hardware.
On the upgrade from XP entry, the first source does confirm that XP users will need to wipe their harddrive. It goes on to say that that is the preferable way to go anyway, that article does not criticize Microsoft or 7 for doing it that way. The second source is from Microsoft, and once again confirms you can't do an in-place upgrade from XP, no criticism. The third one also confirms the statement, but once again says it is the preferred method or upgrading you OS anyway, not a criticism.

I can continue but most of the information is still not adequately sourced as a criticism. It is almost all just what some users feel are problems not what reliable sources see as problems. This section needs major work. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 09:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I went through the criticism section and made the following changes:

  • Removed "Criticism of Microsoft Windows" and "Criticism of Microsoft" links due to NPOV.
  • Removed statements concerning criticism section being from critics of Windows 7 since it may not be accurate depending on the source.
  • In "Software" removed information that no sources supported and removed sources which either had nothing to do with the statements added or were from a blog or forum.
  • Removed "Windows XP" section since none of the sources supported the statement that you have to wipe the hard disk drive to install Windows 7 on a Windows XP computer.
  • Removed "Windows Vista" section since the sources were from a blog and forum.
  • Removed "Compatibility With Older Hardware" section since the source made no criticism about this.
  • Removed "Hardware Requirements" and "Editions" subsection since neither provided sources.
  • Removed "DRM" section since the only source linked to a general website against DRM.
  • Removed "Physical Disk Space" section since no source was given.
  • Removed "Price" section since the source given was the Microsoft website which only listed the prices and moved the information on Windows 7 Vista Ultimate concerns back into the reception section.
  • Removed "Performance" section since the statement on Windows 7 being only slightly faster than Windows Vista doesn't make sense as a criticism and both sources noted that Windows 7 was an improvement. Also of the other two sources one was a link to a YouTube video which would not be reliable source. The other source was from February of 2009 and was testing a beta version of Windows 7.
  • Removed "Graphical User Interface Changes" section since no source was given.
  • Removed "Made in India" section since the source given did not support the statements that were made.

Since after going through the criticism section I could only find one statement that had a reliable source and because no consensus had been reached on adding a criticism section I moved the reliably sourced statement to the reception section. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Information Suppression and Disinformation

This section has been added to consolidate the multiple NPOV discussions, the multiple "No Criticism of Windows 7 Sections", Article layout issues, and other disinformation and/or misleading information in the article. It has been added to the top because it is a central issue in this article. Please don't move it to the bottom. Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am moving all the sections back into chronlogical order. I moved your comments to the bottom per the talk page guidelines. Editors will expect the oldest to be at the bottom not at the top. Rearranging the page to your desires outside of the talkpage guidelines could be considered disruptive. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-Neutral Point of View

Several wikipedians have complained about the neutrality of this article. They specifically cite that there is no Criticism section. I have added one with dozens of references but these changes keep being undone by GB fan and GrandDrake. I have flagged the article as NPOV and NPOV-Check which have been undone by these authors as well. In an attempt to mislead readers, these two have buried any criticisms deep within a "Reception" section, a place most people are not likely to look and would require them to read 90% of the article which contains nothing but praise before they get to the bottom and read the criticism which has been trivialized and the majority of it suppressed.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again you need to get your facts straight before accusing people of things. I have never removed NPOV or NPOV-Check tags from the article. You were warned about assuming good faith before also, none of my edits are with the intention of misleading readers. I explained above why I do not believe the criticism section belongs like you had it, as did GrandDrake. As I explained above reception is not positive or negative it is neutral. Creating a criticism section creates a non-neutral article. You really should start discussing this rather than accusing other editors of alterior motives and bad faith. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 04:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
It was a different user who removed 3 of the 4 tags that you first added and I removed the fourth one since it was added as a minor edit and because there was no explanation for it on the talk page at that time. Wikipedia:NPOV dispute states that "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page" and that "Tags should be added as a last resort". As for the issue of the criticism section the first time that you added a crticism section there were no sources for it and it contained many statements of personal opinion such as "Windows 7 is expensive". Later on you added back the criticism section to the article with sources but as I explained on the talk page there were problems with the vast majority of it. For example the source you added for "Windows 7 is expensive" was a Microsoft website that listed prices for Windows 7. That source did not support the price as being a criticism and it certainly wouldn't support the statement that "Windows 7 is expensive". The vast majority of the sources you added to support the criticism section either did not support the statements that were made or were taken from blogs and forums. Also though you point out that some users have asked for a criticism section in the past I would point out that other users in the past disagreed with that. Personally I see no reason why negative reviews for Windows 7 could not simply be added to the Reception section as is done with other operating system articles such as Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Ubuntu (operating system). --GrandDrake (talk) 05:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems fairly obvious to me that Whytehorse's reasons for wanting a criticism section are borne entirely out of a dislike of Windows or Microsoft, or a desire to get people to switch from it. It seems fair enough for any sourced and verifiable genuine criticism to appear in the "Reception" section, just as sourced and verifiable praise is - however, having a specific section deliberately created for the purposes of criticising the OS, linking to crappy sources like forums, does not constitute NPOV. (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I second this. To me, it may be gaming the system. I have not seen any more contributions from Whytehorse1413 since August 2010, just to let you know.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Windows features?

Should there be a section on Windows features new in Windows 7, like Bitlocker?Willbennett2007 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There is already a section, Windows_7#New_and_changed_features that includes new and changed features in Windows 7. There is also a whole article Features new to Windows 7 on new features. That article includes a section on Bitlocker, Features_new_to_Windows_7#BitLocker_to_Go. If there is missing information you are freee to add to either or both articles as long as you add reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 14:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Crystal ball violation

"Windows 7 will be succeeded by Windows 8, which has no release date as of yet."

That looks to me like a clear violation of the Wikipedia rule about not predicting the future. (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is now sourced so it is not a crystal ball violation since we are not the ones saying it. ~~ GB fan ~~ 14:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article

ARM Support

Do not add this-it's speculative if you're talking about Windows 7-this belongs in the section on Windows 8 in History of Microsoft Windows.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't speculative. Later, we had a conference on microsoft, to show the Windows 7 for ARM processors (it's a prototype, but, functional). They announed that the ARM support is done in Windows 8. (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no source for any evidence of windows 7 running on arm systems, here's the video of the original press conference: it's been specified that they are demonstrating a future version of windows running arm platform, and had never said it's windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

CPU count

I have to say, the maximum number of logical processors is NOT per physical CPU, nor is it based on the actual core count. 256 hyper-threaded cores are not supported. In theory too, 2 processors of 256 threads each is also not supported. Do not add this again.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Current stable build

The current stable build is now 7601 (Service Pack 1) which was built on Friday 13th Janurary 2011 and was released to OEMS last week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pologoalie8908, 3 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The stable release of Windows 7 SP1 is available through Microsoft's website to download and install.

Pologoalie8908 (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation? It hasn't been officially released, and is only at RC status at the moment.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


I've noticed that many editors have entered grammatically incorrect info to this article. Just a reminder that grammar rules apply here.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Wangowiki, 23 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The "P" in "Service packs" needs to be capitalized. Under "Service packs" a subtitle that should be named "Service Pack 1" (for identifying Windows 7 Service Pack 1) is missing from the section. There also shouldn't be unnecessary information about Service Pack 1 due to the fact the section looks like a timeline instead of what the Service Pack brings to Windows 7. Also in the last three sentences of "Service packs" are almost duplicate information. Wangowiki (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Partly done: done for the second request, but Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. for the second.--Breawycker (talk to me!) Review Me! 22:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{edit semi-protected}}

In the "Europe" section, there is an E randomly placed near where it says "Windows 7". Please remove it. Mrs. Betty (talk) 21:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Windows 7 E is was a European version of Windows without Internet Explorer which apparently was killed.[11] Perhaps we should explain that in the text? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bushell89, 24 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Within Hardware Requirements under MultiCore Processors, it states that 32 bit systems can handle upto 2 cores. However when checking the source it states that its 32 cores. Must have just been a typo but quite a major one. Bushell89 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the article and source say the same thing: 32 cores (logical processors) are supported, but there is a maximum of 2 physical processors. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Service Pack 1 error

Hello, everyone. I am surprised that so many people still do not know about the five pillars of Wikipedia and Wikipedia's mission. I have recently deleted a paragraph about an error in Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 because it looked like another instance practicing the favorite sport of criticize-the-hell-out-of-Microsoft! A bunch of guys had encountered problems installing Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and a journalist exaggerating it into a world-wide crisis.

Computer errors happen everyday, people. Please don't make such a big deal out of them, unless there are strong evidences. Fleet Command (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


In the reception section license sales are listed. The over 300 million licenses sold reported on jan 27 should be specified better on the timeframe as it about sales up to dec 31st 2010 as listen in the Earnings Release FY11 Q2.

Also a new sales figure has been posted on the windows team blog as of april 22nd of over 350 million licenses solds in the 18 month since the release. (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Physical CPUs are NOT the same as Physical Cores

When reading about Windows 7 only supporting 2 physical CPUs I was surprised. Until I realized it was NOT talking about cores, but about CPUs. It would be good to remove discussion about the processors supported from the article, since no one has more than 1 physical CPU. It is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, some people do have dual-processor PCs, for instance Maximum PC's 2010 PC of the year.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Andres3510, 28 April 2011

| succeeded by windows 8 Andres3510 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done - Windows 8 has not been released.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Samsung N145 Plus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Succeeded by

Please do not fill this field in with Windows 8 until it has been released.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a note into the article to inform users of this. pcuser42 (talk) 02:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Why not? We now know from reliable sources that there will be Windows Codename 8. Why not fill this field? "It is not released" is not a good excuse, just because the infobox creators chose to write "Succeeded by:" instead of "Successor:". Fleet Command (talk) 13:42, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. It is accurate information we are giving out, and it would be helpful to have in the infobox. Is the worst that could happen that somebody thinks it has already been released, only to click over to the Windows 8 article to discover it hasn't been yet? –CWenger (^@) 16:19, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
In that we would imply that Windows 7 is not the current version of Windows, which it is, and I don't know if Microsoft will change the branding later on.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:36, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
The first point is a good one that I admittedly hadn't considered. But we have to weigh the potential for giving the user that impression versus not providing the information that is relevant. As for the branding, I don't see that as a big concern—if it was the Windows 8 article would not exist currently or at anytime up until the day it is released. –CWenger (^@) 00:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
What about a short sentence somewhere saying something along the lines of "Windows 7 will be succeeded by Windows 8 in <sourced date>"? pcuser42 (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
How about Succeeded by: Windows 8 (to be released late 2012)? –CWenger (^@) 02:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Or, if the template allows, To be succeeded by: Windows 8, or, somewhere in the article text, "Windows 7 will be succeeded by Windows 8."Jasper Deng (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
The bold part cannot be customized, dear Jasper; though I think we can send an edit request to the Template:Infobox OS version; but our request will affect all such infoboxes in Wikipedia, not just this. Nevertheless, I think the label is very small issue. I don't seen why should you worry about the implication of "latest OS". Wikipedia is not a software update platform after all, is it? I agree with CWenger request. Although, we can always request and RFC for more inputs. Fleet Command (talk) 18:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only change I would make to that is instead of using small text, use italic text.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Fine. No specific preference here. Fleet Command (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 Done. It is added. Glad we could reach a compromise. –CWenger (^@) 18:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have any sources to confirm the date of release in the brackets? --JetBlast (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

It used to be in the Windows 8 article but it seems to have been removed. Alternatively, we could just put (not yet released). –CWenger (^@) 17:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not checked but i think it was removed due to lack of evidence. Microsoft have not yet indicated a release window. As this is the case maybe there should be a time window on this article? --JetBlast (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Swapped Features with Development

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

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

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

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)

Q&A wrong!

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

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)


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)

IA-32 vs x86 (or x86-32)

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

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)

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)

 DoneJasper Deng (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Service Pack 1 General Availability Date

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Edits by LittleBenW


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)
  1. ^