Talk:Windows 7 editions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Are this the official editions than Microsoft will release??

You're right. These are highly unlikely to be the official editions. It even conflicts with the Windows 7 page itself. The Editions section there claims that there will be editions for sub-notebooks and netbooks but this page doesn't. The info here is premature. Anyways, there should be more references than that.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Scant Info warrants removal of tables[edit]

These tables are flawed because the right column is blank, so there is no need for tables. A list would be more customary.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced these tables with a bulleted list.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Thank You to Who Ever removed the Professional edition from the list and put in the Windows Vista edition names. This makes more sense.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Now the main section is off-topic due to someone's thoughtless removal of the list of editions[edit]

Who did this? The Upgrade Program is irrelevant to the article and should be removed unless there is a bigger section in the upper part of the page explaining the editions.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Upgrade Program involves (the only announced) Windows 7 editions, hence the relevance? — Northgrove 01:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
These editions are only rumors and are not official. And anyways, talking about an upgrade program is premature because no one can do any upgrades on a large scale yet (only testers like me can).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I will remove the Upgrade Section now because of it's rumor-based facts.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft speaks up on the state of the Windows 7 editions[edit]

How many flavors will Windows 7 come in?

I personally don't have time to go through that article now, but Microsoft speaks up on the preliminary state of the Windows 7 editions, and some information is given on possible upcoming ones. — Northgrove 01:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the editions will be the same as Windows Vista, as the article says. The fact that the Beta is labeled as Ultimate suggests that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comparisons among editions[edit]

There are too little differences between the editions, especially Enterprise and Ultimate. The features list is also incomplete. I will add "This list is partial. You can contribute by adding to it." only if no-one replies to this message.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I/ve updated the Enterprise edition Home Group from join only to Create and Join. According to Paul, every edition is a superset of the one below and Ultimate and Enterprise are exactly the same product, but available through different licence programs.

quote: For those few customers who simply must have everything, Windows 7 Ultimate offers all of the features from Enterprise but loses the volume licensing requirement. So you can think of Ultimate edition as Enterprise for consumers (and other retail customers).

Paul never said that... they appear the same because the features list is incomplete.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
And when I looked at this post on the Windows 7 Blog, I saw the difference. The difference between Ultimate and Enterprise besides availibility is that Ultimate has everything including the games and other goodies like the Media Center while Enterprise only has the business features plus Encryption and Management features.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
The Windows 7 Blog you cited states that "in Windows 7, each SKU is a superset of the previous SKU. No features are lost on upgrade". --GrandDrake (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Source # 5 is a rumors site. You need more references than that for a comparison table so I am going to remove all of the features that don't have a second source.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Source #5 is Microsoft's own website. I don't know what you're looking at, but check the References list. I've restored the table, as all of the features are in fact listed by Microsoft. --Resplendent (talk) 00:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean #4. And anyways, when replying, please indent by typing colons for every space in the indent.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Since Microsoft themselves list what features Enterprise/Ultimate edition has, how is there supposed to be a second source for this? What more do you need other than the developer explaining what features its own software has? Your arguments make no sense, and your reversions which refer to a completely nonexistant version are incorrect even without removing the sourced info. --Resplendent (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Listen, the Microsoft Website is too vague with the exception of Enterprise. If there are developers who are adding their comments, please add those pages to the External Links page. I do not want to continue this war and if you do so I will give you a warning and possible Administrator referral.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
And though we know the features list we do not know the features lists of each individual edition. You need to add more references or I will remove the table overall. The Microsoft site does not show all of the the features, and neither does source # 1. I am renown for my fat and irritating warning signs, one of which I will paste on your talk page if you keep editing like this without reference. User: Josh the Nerd will have to intervene as a third party and he is not tolerant of insufficient references. Even though this page is about a work-in-progress and can have little references, you need to have at least two per detail for it to considered sufficient.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I have added multiple reference to the article about this issue. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Make sure their references are not rumor sites and that this one is not either. Thank You.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I would consider the references I have added to be reliable and I have replaced the Geekzone reference with the ExtremeTech reference. --GrandDrake (talk) 05:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, can anyone find any references Microsoft have put out about the versions of Windows 7? Because the table should go if they haven't put one out yet, per WP:RS. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Sufficient references have now been found that this dispute is over. Sorry that I didn't know how to close the request. --Resplendent (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" and we already have several of those. And the ExtremeTech reference states that "Although Microsoft has yet to reveal the price and ship date of its Windows 7 OS, the company provided us with documents that describe the different versions of Windows 7 in unprecedented detail." --GrandDrake (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not enough still. Microsoft never truly announced the full features list with the exception of Enterprise. A good reference for edition names is a posting on the Windows 7 Team Blog ( but we still need more Microsoft references. Some of these references refer to this article and are not true references even... I've seen sites do that.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" and we already have several of those. And the ExtremeTech reference states that "Although Microsoft has yet to reveal the price and ship date of its Windows 7 OS, the company provided us with documents that describe the different versions of Windows 7 in unprecedented detail." Also exactly which references said that they use this Wikipedia article as the source for their information? I have looked through the current references and did not see any that did that. --GrandDrake (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Resplendent and Jasper Deng, please tell me what makes you think a mediator is needed/not needed. --  Punk Boi 8  talk  06:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned the table is fine as it is now. --Resplendent (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Why? Does it meet Wikipedia policy, especially WP:RS? Have Microsoft' themselves said that those were what will be in each version of Windows 7? --  Punk Boi 8  talk  06:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are sufficient sources for it. I wish this case could just be closed already since it's now entirely moot. Please don't harass me to continue arguing when I've clearly said that it's been worked out. I can only speak for myself though. --Resplendent (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources" and we already have several of those. And the ExtremeTech reference states that "Although Microsoft has yet to reveal the price and ship date of its Windows 7 OS, the company provided us with documents that describe the different versions of Windows 7 in unprecedented detail." --GrandDrake (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the Enterprise edition does not include the games. Should that be changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise doesn't have games. I removed that--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise DOES have games, but they are disabled by default. Please stop removing it or this page will be blocked from editing by IP users like you.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't threaten all editors who choose to use IP addresses just because you have a disagreement with one of them or this page will be blocked from editing by users who have six letters in their first names like you. (smile) (talk) 09:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anybody know if the Pro and Enterprise version has EVERY games available in the Premium version (which titles are obviously not available in Starter and Home Basic), including Mahjong, Chess Titans and the three internet multi-player games? Even when checking Miscrosoft(sic?) site, it's not 100% clear to me... all I know is those 5 titles are marked as only being in the Premium versions (but then maybe are not in Pro/Enterprise/Ultimate versions? - check this official page), and on the other hand I know that Pro/Enterprise games are disabled by default (it's clear that basic games such as Solitaire, Minesweeper, etc. are available in every version, even if they need to be enabled first to be seen in Pro/Enterprise versions). Thanks for Pro owners to clarify this (minor) question. Trustworthy reference link would be even better. (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Games aren't installed by default on the PRO version, however they are available on that version, all you need is to add them in the usual Add/Configure Programs menu. — MetalGearLiquid [chat] 10:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
There are unlimited 'versions' of any OS given the several layers of 'cooks' for any commercial product. The 'Win 7 Pro'>> Start>> Programs>> Games>> list on my new ('150325) HP Envy has 30 name entries. This 30 name list includes six 'game collection names' which I have not explored because they require further EULA waivers etc.
After 20 years of Ms watching, I am confident that any documentation from Microsoft (or any commercial self-documentation) is tainted with hyperbole, evasion, ellipsis, or carelessness. "Confidence is not reliability; it might just reflect ignorance".
--Wikidity (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

2000 editions[edit]

There should be a companion article for Win2k editions... Windows 2000 editions. (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't something to be talked about on this page-please do so on the main Windows 2000 page. And anyways, who wants to learn about Windows 2000-it is a bad, outdated release.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was a shopping tool, it would already need to offer precise info about Windows 2000 (for instance, as many people I have a couple PCs still perfectly running with W2K; when time comes to consider updating them, then I will need precise info about both the new and the old systems to compare). But Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, it even more needs precise info about objects of all times. In addition, "who wants to learn", "bad", and even "outdated", are not quite appropriate terms IMO in or around an encyclopedia. So I suggest you simply remove, even in this discussion page, the whole phrase "And anyways..." (and my present reply as well). Otherwise I agree that the details of W2K versions should remain (as they are currently) inside the main W2K article. Michel Merlin (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Anytime Upgrade and Upgrades Section[edit]

Paul Thurott wrote about Windows Anytime Upgrade which I feel needs to be added to the Upgrades section. But since the current section remains bogus I am removing it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

| X | The upgrade section was removed. Free upgrades??-I don't think so!Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
/!\ I am again deleting that section due to insufficient references.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Netbook Targetting[edit]

Every slashdot article I see lately about Win7 is full of a massive amount of misinformation (mostly mocking Win7 for having a 3-process limitation). When I press for a source, they usually point to this article as proof that MS will only offer the Starter edition on netbooks. I've found a source that clearly shows this is not the case, however (the blogger claims that Win7 Ultimate works on his netbook great), but don't feel like updating the article due to the massive anti-MS slant I always encounter whenever I try to correct an MS article. Here's the source, straight from microsoft: If anyone wants to integrate this information, that'd be great. Thanks. (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the section to make it more neutral. Replaced the quoted sections with one that is actually in the article and included a bit about Windows Starter not specifically being aimed at the netbook market (also in source). Windows Starter is (now with Vista) and will be (with Windows 7) widely sold with normal PC's in developing markets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The statement you added I could not find in the reference and earlier in that reference it gave a quotation from Microsoft which said that: "For that reason, we will continue to offer a few targeted SKUs for customers with specialized needs: For price-sensitive customers with small notebook PCs, some OEMs will offer Windows 7 Starter. For customers in emerging markets, we will make Windows 7 Home Basic available." Also note that use of the phrase "Contrary to popular opinion" is a weasel phrase. --GrandDrake (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I've updated the Windows 7 Starter section again. The previous text of 'lower cost laptops' and 'price sensitive consumers' is nowhere in the source. Lower cost laptops also implies netbooks to a lot of people, so this is confusing. The source itself mentions that Windows 7 Ultimate will run fine on netbooks, so lets not add to the confusion by using original research. I've replaced it with an actual quote from the article.

There is no reason to remove a reliable reference[edit]

Warren, there is no reason to remove a reliable reference even if it is redundant to other references. The fact alone that it supports the other references is enough reason to have it and note that we almost had an edit war over not having enough references. You may very well remove a reference that later on could have been used to show that certain information was reliable. As such I would not consider there to ever be a reason to remove a reliable reference from an article. Also as far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy which gives a limit for the number of references an article can have. --GrandDrake (talk) 04:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Redundant sources weigh down the article and don't contribute anything of value to a reader. Remember that sources are there to help a user verify any given piece of information, not to serve as a cleverly-disguised link-farm to every major publication that reports on a topic. A single qualifying source will almost always be sufficient for any individual statement made in the encyclopedia. If the source isn't considered reliable or reputable enough to support a statement on its own, then it probably shouldn't be used at all. Warren -talk- 05:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Can you link to a Wikipedia policy that states a limit for the number of references that an article can have? If not than you are removing a reliable reference from this article out of personal opinion. Also note that Jasper Deng removed the majority of the comparison chart when it had 3 references. --GrandDrake (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
And Warren had better stop this or else I will stick one of my fat and irritating warning signs on his talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of supported processor architectures[edit]

I added "Processor Architecture (x86/x64)" to the comparison chart to make it clear that Starter only supports x86 architectures.

Windows 7 Ultimate-Promotional periods only??[edit]

Windows 7 Ultimate doesn't appear to be headed to a promotional-periods availibility, and the reference is too shaky, only saying may and not will.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If no one replies I will remove it once and for all.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you guys are right but I am studying a Microsoft Windows 7 course (70-680) that repeatedly stated 128GB is the maximum memory

Incomplete info[edit]

I'm not blaming anyone (I did some Googling, it doesn't seem to be out there) but what does this stuff mean:

  • "Home group" is given no definition. Should this reference Windows' Group Policy?
  • Home Basic has only "partial" support for Aero, while Home Premium and up fully support it. What's left out in Home Basic that makes it "partial"?
  • Also in Home Basic, "Premium Games" are not... not what, not included? not supported? A fancy pinball game isn't included in the box, or it won't run a third party fancy pinball game?
  • Presentation Mode and Location Aware Printing are likewise not linked or explained.

I know they're a couple years out from release, but should the wiki simply parrot a list of marketing fluff that has no definition? - LafinJack (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

- "Home Group" is not Group Policy, so, no.
- Home Basic's Aero limitations are explained in this article. You should try reading it.
- Other features aren't explained because YOU haven't taken the time to add it to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that is the sum of its contributors voluntary efforts -- these things don't magically happen by themselves, and there's no point in complaining about what people haven't voluntarily done.
- As for being a "couple years out from release", if you'd taken even just the tiniest sliver of time to read Windows 7, you'd know that it is due out as early as next month. Warren -talk- 15:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Also, why is the footnote for source info on backup features across editions simply an explanatory note with no reference? It's still not clear in this article what advanced backup is and the specifics of backup capabilities across versions. Any better sources? (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Not group policy a feature to healp sharing files on a home network
As far as I am aware it has absolutly no Aero interface.
Doesn't inlcude some of the premium windows bundles games — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Maximum = Ultimate[edit]

Some people still get deleting information even with provided reliable source. 1. For people who was reverting it because of no english source - source is not necessary to be English. 2. For those who think Maximum is actually Ultimate in Russian - Максимальный translates as Maximum, while Ultimate is Предельный. They are not straight synonyms. Elk Salmon (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it true that Microsoft calls it "Maximum" (the English word). Obviously, Microsoft fells Максимальный and Ultimate are equivalent. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You give a reliable reference but the reference only goes to the Russion Windows 7 website which does not mention any difference in terms of translation. As such pointing out a translation difference you noticed would be considered self published original research. And there is the issue of whether this translation difference is notable. For example the Yahoo translation engine for the Russion Windows 7 website uses the term "Domestic" instead of "Home". Should we mention that as well? Should we mention every difference of translation for all the Windows 7 editions in every language that it is released in? And what happens when one translation engine, or person, gives one word and another translation engine, or person, gives a different word for a foreign word? It is good that you want to contribute to this article but are translation differences notable enough to be mentioned? I do not think they are but if the consensus was that translation differences are notable enough to be included I think they would fall under the category of trivia. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Individual pages for each edition[edit]

Now that Windows 7 is going to be released soon, I believe it's time to give each edition it's own page like was done with Windows Vista.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

All of those pages redirect to Windows Vista editions. I suggest all of the Windows 7 editions redirect to this page similarly. --Resplendent (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Family Pack[edit]

Microsoft have announced a 3-User 'Family Pack' for Windows 7. Should this be put in the article? [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7e Editions no longer exist[edit]

The section on Windows 7e editions needs to be removed and replaced with Microsoft's proposed Ballot Screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Who says Windows 7 Enterprise does not include Windows XP Mode?[edit]

Someone altered the comparison table to say that Windows 7 Enterprise doesn't include Windows XP Mode OR Windows Virtual PC. No references were cited. I'm undoing that edit. Jasper Deng (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison chart: Max. RAM in Windows 7 Starter Edition[edit]

Maximal RAM is limited to 2 GB instead of 4 GB: The reference in the current wikipedia article is wrong -- (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Windows 7 Signiture Edition[edit]

This edition is non-existent, or is it just a special edition of another edition? If yes, please specify which in the article. That section is deleted until then.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe win7 sigature Edition should be in this article...I have a picture if you wan't...I took it should be fair use right? [1]Theundecided (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I need a picture and proof it is NOT counterfeit (your link is broken).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe the signature editions are rare as they were handled out at Microsoft developer conferences. I think they are Ultimate versions with Steve Ballmer signatures. As such I don't think they belong on the list of editions.


Based on the "select language" dropdown on the virtual pc download page, it appears there are indeed K and KN versions of 7. --Resplendent (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Enterprise Colour[edit]

Hi all. I just want to let you know of the change that I think is incorrect. [2]. The edit description is that "the enterprise colour is blue, not black". It is not black in the first place as the code for black is #312e25 (as in Ultimate). It was and supposed to be dark blue (#191c45). See [3] and [4]. I do not want to be involved in editing the article, so I put my thought here in the talk page. Thanks. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Language packs?[edit]

Any change in the language pack support levels? Used to be absurdly over-restricted in Vista. (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is the student edition of the software not mentioned in the article...???[edit]

See the info below

If my memory right, the student edition of the operating system started with Windows XP because I have not seen such edition prior to Windows XP-- (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "Windows 7 Student Edition." It's just an offer to students to purchase the Professional or Home Premium edition for a discount. As such it deserves no real mention, as there are thousands of ways and means/discounts/coupons/etc. through which one could buy it. Definitely not notable. --Resplendent (talk)

Oooops sorry and you are right. However, I reckon that student edition should be notably labelled anyhow. Otherwise, the definition/criteria of piracing about the software should be offically announced-- (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why I wrote the following comment yesterday Talk:Windows Genuine Advantage#Why it is necessary to define genuine product one by one-- (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of physical CPUs/cores[edit]

Windows 7 does not differentiate between physical CPUs and number of total cores. It only counts the number of available system cores. Tha maximum number of cores that I have heard from a Microsoft Official is 256. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Please understand that CPU cores are different than CPU chips. Each core does not need an OS-assigned address, but each CHIP does. And anyways the max number of cores 256 is Windows Server 2008 R2 only. Windows 7 itself only supports 64. Please do not change the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talkcontribs) 01:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That is wrong, AFAIK. Windows 7 has a limit of supported physical CPUs to 1 or 2 (depending on edition). The number of cores in one CPU is unlimited (as far as licensing goes, technically it might have a limit, but it is something like 16 or so). See: I could not find a definitive answer on thou... -- (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I tested it on machine with two quadcore pocessors. Home Premium and lower versions use only 4 cores (only one physical CPU). (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I highly disagree with anyone who says Windows supports unlimited cores, for then why does Windows Server limit to 256? Anyways, 64 is the max because that was what was in Windows Vista, and Windows 7 didn't get a kernal modification to support a different number. The IP User who just cited a forum resource should try to verify that thread's source, because forums aren't reliable sources of information to cite.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It goes like this: 1 physical CPU for BASIC, HOME and HOME PREMIUM editions, 2 physical CPUs for PRO, ULTIMATE and ENTERPRISE editions. Number of cores is not specified, which most likely means that all cores per CPU will be used. Source: palibebeh 11:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's either 64 or 256, because for Microsoft, limiting the server version while not the client is putting the cart before the horse.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

dvd playback[edit]

When the article says starter doesn't support dvd playback does it mean it doesn't support it out of the box or does it mean they can't be played at all (even with third party software)? Plugwash (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That information was not correct, pure and simple. It can play DVDs just fine (assuming the PC has a DVD drive). --Resplendent (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Home Basic x64[edit]

I took the liberty of modifying the table and some texts, which said that Home Basic is only 32-bit capable. No, it is also 64-bit capable. Yes, the installation media included is 32-bit only, but 64-bit DVD can be ordered. My sources:

  • [5] (this is Indonesian shopping website - I will not use this as citation as it can be regarded as spam)
  • [6] (if you see the screenshot below number 7, you can see that Windows 7 Home Basic x64 is selectable)
  • One citation already cited in this page. Number one: [7] - it said the following: "Except for Windows 7 Starter, each version will be available in either a 32-bit or 64-bit version." -- w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic disk and mirror support ?[edit]

Which editions support Windows Dynamic Discs? Which support striping, mirrored or RAID volumes? --Xerces8 (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I checked Enterprise edition (the trial version) and it supports spanned, striped and mirrored volumes, but not RAID-5 volumes. Can someone check the others? (I used VMWare to avoid the need for multiple hard drives) -- (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bits (came preinstalled with my new machine) and when I tried to resize the default partitions that came with the system hard drive, the disk manager converted my disk to a dynamic one, so I'm a bit confused about the chart saying that Home Premium doesn't support Dynamic Disks... -- (talk) 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this: ( ) Pro+ supports mirroring, others only mirror/stripe and RAID5/6/10 is not supported. Maybe someone could add this to the table? Anttir717 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Server 2008 R2?[edit]

Windows Server 2008 R2 is actually a version of Windows 7 (both are Build 6.1.7600.16385.090713-1255, compiled on 2009-10-22). IMO, it should be added to the comparison chart even though Microsoft for marketing reasons decided to not call it "Windows 7 Server" as they did with Windows 2000 (note that Wikipedia covers the server and non-server versions of Windows 2000 on the same page). What a program actually is seems more important than what some marketing department calls it. See Badge engineering. (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Windows Server 2008 R2 is a version of Windows 7 but is a separate product.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy of physical CPU limit?[edit]

This is regarding the 7th line in the table. The only reference supplied (number 31) links to Microsoft's licensing agreements page. When I check in the PDF for Home Basic and Home Premium, the only text I can find that references the number of physical processors indicates that both versions are licensed to run on 2 physical processors at once. I can't see any supporting evidence for the table here to list those versions as supporting only 1, so this seems inaccurate to me. Can anybody explain why this data is listed this way? Qwyzyx (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Starter Edition Application Limit[edit]

I have changed this sentence, as the three app limit did not end up being included. The very same source [10] states that this is no longer true. The sentence could probably be removed completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Didn't see this discussed, but shouldn't the chart have current MSRP values? --Glenn Xavier (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who took them out[8]. See WP:NOPRICES -- basically restated that Wikipedia is not a place for prices unless the price is essential important to understanding the article. And then furthermore runs into a problem as this page applies to a global audience, so US prices would give the page a US-centric WP:BIAS ... -- KelleyCook (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I would put them back in. I find the prices to be ESPECIALLY important in this case, since it is a comparison of different versions, the most significant difference being the price. Darktangent (talk) 04:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain how prices are the most "significant" difference. Personally, the total feature count of each is more important, in my opinion.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Append CRC and MD5 of each disk and preinstall to the article[edit]

Some people who have purchased a disk or a computer with Windows 7 preinstalled are concerned that it may have been tampered with.

We should append the CRC's and MD5's of each disk and preinstall to the article to assist and improve access to this vital information. (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the (default, non N, VL, or E official modification) SHA-1's listed at ( ), which requires a (free) hotmail/msn account. (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Enterprise edition - No mention in the table of "Direct Access" feature, which is apparently only available in the Enterprise edition, and allows for secure access to corporate networks over IPv6 without VPN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

1.It's available in Windows 7 Ultimate as well. 2.Please find a source.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Max RAM[edit]

i believe the 32 bit versions of home basic and premium both support up to 3 GB of ram not 4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That's not true. 32-bit Windows will show 3.25-3.75GB of RAM because some memory addresses get reserved.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Allthough that the 4 GB are not completely used, the 32 bit address-range ist capable to handle that range, so I undid my changes to 3 GB, as that would have been less correct, see also 4-GB-Limit (German Wikipedia) --Bienengasse (talk) 12:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Starter 64-bit[edit]

I've seen a Netbook running Windows 7 Starter 64-bit, so the info in this page about Starter being "32-bit only" is maybe out of date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OMA2k (talkcontribs) 16:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you give a picture? Also, please no original research.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
MS says it give a 64bit Edition[9], but Vista not. More? --Perhelion (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I need a screenshot and another Microsoft link.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes here MS says otherwise [10]. --Perhelion (talk) 00:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no checkmark next to 64-bit for the Starter edition.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes the german link seems old (where is the same in EN?), look here[11] and here[12] Starter x64 as requirement. Only circumstantial? --Perhelion (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
We have contradictory sources.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
A Google search shows that the only places that "windows 7 starter x64" shows up on is in the various KB articles, etc. Thus, I suspect this is probably either a mistake on Microsoft's part, or an edition that they may have planned to release but did not. --TheSophera (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
That is possible (M$ have committed many mistakes in the past), the most sites are illegal key or downloads. Can we not ask Microsoft (I've seen they have Wikipedia User here)? --Perhelion (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Windows 7 SP1[edit]

It seems to me that WGA Notifications is no longer voluntary with Service Pack 1 for Windows 7. The Windows_Genuine_Advantage article, which discusses the offensive Notifications component, is outdated and difficult. Up until the present the Notifications component of WGA was voluntary. My W7 Home Premium Toshiba protects me from Notifications by having KB971033 automatically unchecked. I appreciate that. Unless I accept Notifications, however, I will not be offered SP1. If I do the massive all versions download of SP1, Microsoft states that Notifications is incorporated in that. Since it seems that Service Pack 1 for Windows 7 makes Notifications mandatory, this should documented as one of the "features" in the service pack one section of this article. - (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss there. I personally think WGA's article is the place for this.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"Upgrade Compatibility" table accessibility[edit]

The table currently (link is to the edit at the time of writing; current view) at the top of the "Upgrade Compatibility" section is completely inaccessible to people who are blind or have red-green colour blindness (the most common type of colour blindness). I don't know what the normal way to fix this in Wikipedia is, but this does need fixed! --TheSophera (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Simply {{yes}} and {{no}} in a regular table would be better than that templated table.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Remote Desktop Connections Limit?[edit]

Does Windows 7 Enterprise (as host) only allow one user at a time to remotely connect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Windows Parental Controls[edit]

Windows Parental Controls in Comparison chart should be "Yes" for Starter edition regarding to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Windows 7 Starter and Windows Aero[edit]

In section Main editions it is stated:

Windows 7 Starter ... The Windows Aero theme is not included in this version.

Is that really true? On my netbook with Windows Starter 7, it very much look like Aero is used (Aero Classic?). See e.g., "". --Mortense (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

"N" version pricing.[edit]

According to the text: "The cost of the N and KN Editions are the same as the full versions" (Special-purpose editions). However, according to , Home Premium N is actually £25.50 more expensive than Home Premium. Professional N and Ultimate N don't suffer from this. I don't have the time, so I'm leaving it to someone else to investigate further and amend the article accordingly. Edrarsoric (talk) 13:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Noiratsi (talk · contribs) 20:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I think this is an excellent article with a tendency to favour information over explanation.

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Overall some excellent writing. See suggestions at the end for minor points.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    I'm failing this point for several reasons.
    • The lead contains information not included in the rest of the article ("the features for all editions of Windows 7 are stored on the machine")
    • Lists are used without context.The list guidelines recommend that lists should have a lead paragraph where appropriate. For me, this article suffers from not having any sort of introduction to the 'Main editions' and 'Special editions' sections. What is a 'main edition'? What is a 'special edition'? What are 'derivatives'? Some sort of explanation is required - we need to know what it's a list of
    • The lead fails to summarize the article. I'd suggest rewriting the lead once the above point about lists/sections without introductions has been addressed. Once each section has an introductory summary it may be easier to see what information needs to be included in the lead. It should summarize the whole article, giving appropriate weight to each element - see WP:LEAD for comprehensive guidelines.
    • The sections 'Upgrade editions' and 'Upgrade compatibility' have a lot of confusingly duplicated information and there is confusion regarding terms like 'in-place upgrade'. At one point 'in-place upgrade' is used when I think 'anytime upgrade' is what is meant. I'd also like to see more context given to the concept of an 'upgrade', though that's not in itself a reason for a fail I don't think - expanding the introductions to each section might help
    • A reference is given again as an external link ( - though obviously that's a very minor issue, not worthy of a fail on its own.
    • Use of images seems unbalanced - Windows Thin PC has an image which doesn't seem to me to add very much. Since the rest of the article has no images, it's odd to include one in this relatively minor section.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Though the Windows 7 'E' edition made huge news, it was never actually released so I think you can get away with not mentioning it. Maybe something to consider, though.
    B. Focused:
    Pass, overall, but I'm not entirely sure about the section on Windows Thin PC, which tells me very little about the product and far too much about the various release dates.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Pass, but see above for points about balance and relevance.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    The quality of writing and information in this article is outstanding. It fails because of lead, list and layout issues, notably a lack of explanation and summary given in the lead section and in the introductions (or lack thereof) to the many lists on the page. I'm failing the article rather than putting a hold because I think the attention it needs may constitute a significant change to the article.
    Other notes:
    • "UNIX application support" might be better presented as a single link - i.e. remove the separate link to UNIX as it may cause confusion. In any case 'application support' is not an appropriate linktext for the article it's currently linked to.
    • Home-Basic is hyphenated at one point in the lead - why?
    • the acronym "VLK" is used without expansion at one point
    • a sentence reads "Home Basic, along with..., include" - I think this should be a singular "includes".

This is a good GA candidate and I encourage re-nomination once the article has been fleshed out with a little more friendly and explanatory prose! --Noiratsi (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

A further comment - this is my first GA review and I think the way I wrote some of these comments made it sound like I was judging based on personal opinion rather than on the criteria set out. Hopefully that's not how it came across, but if it did I'd like to make it clear that while lots of the comments I made are just personal suggestions, the actual reason for failure is based, I hope, purely on the GA criteria. I don't want to edit this review dramatically now that it's posted, but I've learnt from this and in future reviews I intend to be more careful to separate comment and assessment :) --Noiratsi (talk) 10:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

ICS on Windows 7 Home Premium[edit]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place or something, but I have to know. Why is Internet Connection Sharing listed as Unavailable in Windows 7 Home Premium on the Comparison Chart when the Microsoft site says that it is an available feature? ( It's just very confusing is all. --Zander490 (talk) 23:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I am running Windows 7 Home Premium and I am and have always been able to use ICS just fine. The page you linked says it is applicable to Home Premium, Professional, Ultimate, and Enterprise. I believe the Comparison Chart is wrong. Maybe someone got Home Basic (which has a 'Yes') and Home Premium mixed up? (talk) 10:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Windows 7 Pro Rfb[edit]

What is the difference between Win7 Pro and Windows 7 Pro Rfb, sold by an Official Partner of the Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher Program with used computers ? -- Juergen (talk) 11:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Google for ' "windows 7" "refurbisher"' finds a number of articles such as Microsoft Refurbisher Programs which talks the program and has a link to Microsoft Refurbished PC Licensing Guidelines (PDF) which shows an example of a "Windows XP Pro Refurbished PC" license sticker where it's clear that license is much like a new machine's OEM license. You can't transfer it to another PC.
Unfortunately, in terms of adding a note about this to the WP article, it's not clear if there is such a thing as an RFB license that's directly equivalent to an OEM license. I saw mention that if the PC does not have the original COA or rebuild media that the customer/refurbisher needs to buy retail media. Normally, retail licenses are transferable to other machines. I noticed the right sidebar of this page talks about OEM licensing. I'd suspect that a Microsoft Authorized Refurbisher (average a minimum volume of 5,000 PCs refurbished monthly[13], or maybe 1,000 PCs monthly[14]) can get an OEM license. That's guesswork on my part though. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

I propose that Windows 7 editions be merged into Windows Vista and 7 editions. I think that the content of both articles can easily be explained in one, and the articles are of a reasonable size that the merging will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Here is an example of what the new article will look like. (Visitors of the Windows Vista editions page are encourage to discuss on this Windows 7 editions talk page.) --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

A few additional reasons why I propose the merge:

  • The version names, and the majority of the features, are the same for both Windows Vista and 7. Although Windows Vista has a Business edition, it is called Professional in other languages such as French.
  • It is easier to find out which features are introduced by Vista and which are exclusive to 7 by reading one article instead of two.
  • The upgrade table is much more useful when used in one article.
  • The "Reception" section, dealing with Apple's criticism of the six Vista editions, is equally applicable to the synonymous Windows 7 variants.

--True Tech Talk Time (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose. Hi. At first, I thought it is a very good idea until I saw your "example". The significant amount of error in your "example" shows how easy it is to introduce accidental error into articles and how difficult it is to maintain them. No! Keep them separate and far away from each other. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment: What you say is vague and doesn't explain the "significant amount error" you claim to find in my article. Nearly everything is adapted from the two articles, so if there are errors in those, merging them will actually reduce the redundancy and the chances of errors. The only new additions are the "7 only" highlighting (adapted from features Wikipedia claims to be new to Windows 7) and the "Reception" section. Even so, there should be no problem with the content. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. At the first glance, the comparison chart seems 90% wrong to me. For instance, I do know that Windows Media Center didn't exist in the Business edition of Vista; VHD booting and VDI didn't come until Windows 7; and multi-touch support in Windows Vista was miserable. Simply put, the burden of verification and double-verification is overpowering. Even after that is done, a simple "yes" or "no" is misleading way of comparing editions cross-OS. For example, Windows Vista only had Windows Media Player 11, while Windows 7 had Windows Media Player 12 plus a nifty collection of codecs for MPEG-4, AVCHD, QuickTime and 3GP. Let the sleeping devil lie. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I second the strong objection to merging the Windows 7 and Vista articles. Vista is an obsolete operating system and it is very unlikely that anyone would be thinking of installing it now. On the other hand Windows 7 is still the operating system of choice for business users and it is unlikely that they will be changing to Windows 8 in the foreseeable future. This article is therefore of direct application to many business users who have to make decisions as quickly and efficiently as possible in the interest of optimising our economies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmarlow (talkcontribs) 14:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Vista still has a little over three years of support left starting today. Installing 7 instead of Vista will only give the user barely another three years longer than Vista for support. XP, meanwhile, loses support April 8 this year. To compare Vista and 7 is adequate because they receive similar support range, both longer than XP, and are at the core very similar. In fact, Vista SP2 with Platform Upgrade provides many new features that put it nearly (though still not quite) on par with Windows 7. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose This is a terrible idea. Windows Vista /= Windows 7. These 2 article exist to provide a comparison of the editions a version of Windows. A user of either one does not want or need to deal with the information on the editions of another OS. Whether there may be a case to be made for an article comparing the editions of Windows across multiple releases is a separate question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concentrate2 (talkcontribs) 11:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The OP cited several benefits to a combined article:
  • The version names, and the majority of the features, are the same for both Windows Vista and 7. While the names are the same the devil is in the details. There has been a lot of attention paid to the various editions within Windows Vista and within Windows 7. This means it's easy to track down reliable sources and to verify claims. There has been very little attention paid to comparing XP to 7, or comparing edition-by-edition the differences between, for example "Vista Home Premium" vs. "Windows 7 Home Premium."
  • It is easier to find out which features are introduced by Vista and which are exclusive to 7 by reading one article instead of two. Does the average reader care? If they get interested in a detail, such as Windows Movie Maker, they will discover an item of historical interest which is that Movie Maker was included in Vista (all editions), but not in XP or 7. I get regular calls about "should I get 7 or 8?" The time period of when I was asked "should I Vista or 7?" was next to zero.
  • The upgrade table is much more useful when used in one article. The table at User:True Tech Talk Time/Windows Vista and 7 editions#Upgrading is semi-original research and also that added no value over the similar tables at Windows Vista editions#Upgrading and Windows 7 editions#Upgrade compatibility. There is no direct upgrade path from Windows XP to 7 other than a clean install. I called it semi-OR as you can't find such a table in reliable sources.
  • The "Reception" section, dealing with Apple's criticism of the six Vista editions, is equally applicable to the synonymous Windows 7 variants. That's WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Apple's criticism was directed at Vista. As it is, the section about Apple at User:True Tech Talk Time/Windows Vista and 7 editions#Reception has no sources and would be deleted if you tried to add it to the Criticism of Windows Vista article.
At this point the Windows Vista editions article is more of historical interest. I see that Microsoft is still offering it on MSDN[15] but I doubt you can buy a retail copy direct from Microsoft. One amusing data point is at which has a section titled "Compare Windows Vista to Windows 8.1" Microsoft ignored Windows 7! --Marc Kupper|talk 02:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

More details for Windows 7 Thin PC[edit]

I really wanted to see more details on what Windows 7 Thin PC looked like. A picture and system requirements are some things that I think would be nice if applied to.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Both the screenshot and the system requirements can be found in the main article, Windows 7. Thin PC does not look any different. That said, {{expand section}} must only be used for emergencies, because otherwise, all of Wikipedia could use some expansion.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


What is clean installation? Please describe clean installation or get a link to clean installation. That's why I put in "confusing article" mark.

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Qwertyxp2000. I see five links (sources) in front of text for your perusal. Try studying them.
In the meantime, I rewrote that section using the mentioned sources. Just a minor clarification: I wanted to remove your {{Expand section}} with the explanation "cannot be done" but, by mistake, removed {{Confusing}} with it, under the same edit summary. {{Confusing}} should be removed, because I clarified, but not because it "cannot be done".
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

VHD booting confusion[edit]


Those of you who watch the article (I am hoping this includes Michaelmalak) must have by now realized that I reverted addition of the following sentence "Windows 7 editions" article:

Furthermore, any edition of Windows 7 has the capability to boot a VHD containing a completely different operating system such as Windows 8.

This is sentence is an interesting misinterpretation of the source; interesting because it is a similar mistake to which Greg Shultz (author of the source material) is confessing. The verb "to boot" (intransitive) means to start up. "To boot something" means to cause something to start up. Greg Shultz assumed to boot from VHD entails being able to mount a VHD. That's right. But he also assumed that to not to be able to boot from a VHD entails not being able to mount the VHD at boot time. That was wrong. Now, this sentence assumes that to boot into Windows 8 installed on a VHD is a function of the existing installation of Windows 7. Wrong, I'm afraid. Operating systems don't boot other operating systems; bootloaders do. And Windows 8 is the cause here, not the effect.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the following would be more clear?
Furthermore, the bootloader of any edition of Windows 7 has the capability to boot a VHD containing a completely different operating system such as Windows 8.
Michaelmalak (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Er... Did you get the part that I said "Windows 8 is the cause here, not the effect"? No, not every operating system.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The cited article states, "It turns out that the ability to boot from a VHD is actually available in all versions of Windows 7", and then later adds details, "On a Windows 7 Home Premium system, I created VHD and then installed Windows 8 onto the VHD just like I did using Windows 7 Ultimate in my article Dual-boot Windows 7 and Windows 8 using a VHD. Upon completion I saw the dual-boot menu and can indeed boot into Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 8 Release Preview without any problem," yet the comparison chart says "No" for the feature "VHD Booting" and the efn currently does not explain this feature which Microsoft calls "Native VHD Boot". [16] With this capability, the bootloader shipped with Windows 7 Home Premium can boot not merely Windows 8 (an unsurprising capability that the Windows XP bootloader was probably capable of), but Windows 8 installed on a VHD. This capability is not conveyed in the current efn.
Do you have a phrasing that better conveys this capability than my proposal above? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 02:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again
Well, well, I seem to have to be a little frank here. I am afraid your reply contains irrelevant details and ignored to consider whether "Windows 8 is the cause here, not the effect" is correct or not. Somehow, you are convinced that (1) the ability to install Windows 8 in a VHD file alongside Windows 7 Home Edition is a feature of Windows 7 Home Edition, not Windows 8, and (2) bootloader support is all that is needed for an OS to boot from a VHD file in absence of a Hypervisor. This is called synthesis of a published source to advance a position not supported by that source and is forbidden in Wikipedia. You need to supply a source for each. (But don't bother: Native VHD Boot is supported in Windows 8. Of course, you are more than welcome to try and install a Linux onto a VHD along any edition of Windows 7.)
Forget the catchy title "Native VHD Boot is available in all versions of Windows 7". Greg is a journalist and playing fast and loose with the word "boot" is his job. All he succeeds in explaining in his article is that all editions of Windows 7 can be installed onto a VHD and show up in the bootloader menu. This is trivial and lacks due weight. But at the end of the day, no one can start those operating systems. This is what matters in VHD Native Boot and hence, from a neutral point of view, they don't support it. Also it seems Greg was not a careful reader: According to TechNet, "A Windows 7 image (.wim) file can be deployed to the VHD and the .vhd file can be copied to multiple systems. The Windows 7 boot manager can be configured to boot directly into the VHD." These two sentences summarize his entire "discovery". If this is not enough, the page continues to confirm this by invoking examples and scenarios that shows restricting the installation of any edition of Windows 7 into a VHD cannot be enforced. Finally, page 44 of Windows Internals, Sixth Edition by Mark Russinovich explicitly explains that the Native VHD Boot support enforced by Windows licensing subsystem.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering whether we can agree on the following points:
A1. Windows 7 Home Edition through its bootloader can boot a Windows 8 (or any other OS such as Linux) that is on a VHD
A2. Any edition of Windows 7 can be installed onto a VHD, but only Enterprise and Ultimate can be successfully booted from a VHD
A3. Windows XP bootloader can boot other OS's, but only if they are installed in either a) a separate partition or b) a shared filesystem, and not on a VHD
A4. The capability of 1. above depends upon a combination of a feature added to Windows post-XP and cooperation of the other OS (e.g. if the other OS is Windows 8 then Windows 8 has to permit itself to be booted from a VHD.)
We seem to disagree about:
D1. Whether Greg Shultz's article affirms A1 above.
D2. What the main point of Greg Shultz's article was. (I claim A1; you claim A2)
D3. Whether A1 is both non-synth and notable (I claim it is notable since it represents a new capability beyond XP)
I think Windows 8 may have become a red herring here. My focus is on this capability to boot other operating systems (of which Windows 8 was merely an example) from any edition of Windows 7. And this capability is one that is in Windows 7 but not Windows XP, and one that many (including Greg Shultz before his experiment) erroneously believe is limited to only the Ultimate and Enterprise editions of Windows 7.
It is a confusing issue about an important feature new from Windows 7, and obviously I have failed to come up with a good way to phrase it for Wikipedia, and I am looking for suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talkcontribs) 16:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi. You have knack for going wildly off topic. I agree with A4 and A2 but have no comment on A3 (irrelevant here and the answer is too complex) and disagree with A1. But I don't disagree on D2 at all. I just don't comment on it. Greg did a test and reported its results. That I accept. The rest of his article is too ambiguous to be taken independently. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
So you disagree with A1 but believe it is the main point of Greg Shultz's article? Does that mean you disbelieve Greg Shultz's article? So is this a WP:SOURCE issue?
And just to clarify what we're discussing, the following is the text I would like to add to the efn on VHD Booting in the comparison chart:
Furthermore, the bootloader of any edition of Windows 7 has the capability to boot a VHD containing a completely different operating system such as Windows 8
Michaelmalak (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again. Third day of discussion.
I don't have any assumptions about the point of the article at all. I focus on what the article can actually prove. Greg, in his tests, shows that on a Windows 7 Home Premium system, it is possible to successfully install Windows 8 Consumer's Preview, Windows 7 Ultimate, Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Home Premium onto a VHD volume. Of these four, the last two do not successfully start. The rest of what's written there is ambivalent. (One of the commenters even mentions it.) But when you say Windows 7 can also boot other completely different operating systems from a VHD, I don't see a proof for it there. For all I know, another operating system, be it Windows 8 or a completely different operating system, can replace or take over almost any part of the boot process (including the bootloader) and even provide VHD Native Boot support by itself. (Actually, I know it for a fact that Windows 8 does replace the bootloader.)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, looks like you are right about Windows 7 not being able to boot Linux from a VHD. [17]
Michaelmalak (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


Following have been reverted:

I think we really need to mention OEM versions for all windows versions. Agreeably, I wasn't very positive in the description about the OEM versions, but that said, I did only mentioned facts. At the least put the OEM-versions text back in, perhaps with a slightly altered text to make it more positive.

I agree. The only clue behind the reverts was that "OEM" is not an "edition". I suspect adding a section that specifies which editions have OEM versions, and including information about the OEM versions, would pass, especially if properly cited. I wish Wikipedia editors would modify significant article changes to conform rather than just reject such additions outright, many of which contain valuable information. Michaelmalak (talk) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
These are articles about Editions of Windows OS. OEM versions are not a separate Editions, these are just existing editions often with some preinstalled software/drivers which many call Bloatware. This is nothing that belongs into these articles. There's likely a specific article about OEM equipment or OEM Software. There may be Editions which are OEM-only and as such these belong into these Windows Edition articles.--Denniss (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
If there is truly an OEM-specific article somewhere on Wikipedia, then it should be linked from this one. Anyway, I think the information about OEM contained here [18] would be useful in this article. Michaelmalak (talk) 17:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Too many bogus replies there, especially "tied to the motherboard it was activated on". That's only valid for the common install with the corporate/volume license found in OS preinstalls. The OEM license key supplied with the computer is usable on upgrade motherboards but likely has to be activated by phone. Situation may differ with Win8 and newer though due to bogus/awful license storage in Bios.--Denniss (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

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

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^