Talk:Microsoft Windows/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Interesting article

It might be a good idea to add this article in the external links of the article : Microsoft Windows 1983 pre-Version 1.0 demo.

It puts some new points of view about the beginning of Microsoft Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Avetis.k (talk • contribs) 09:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No criticism section

I can't believe there isn't a criticism's section

We've been over this before. There aren't any criticisms that apply to all versions, so we link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows, a disambiguation page in the See Also section. Josh (talk | contribs) 14:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh that's utter pure bollocks. You work for Microsoft? You must. No products in any category of life on this planet have been so highly criticised as Microsoft's. None. You tell the world 'we've been over this before'. Guess what? It. Doesn't Wash. I hereby accuse you of being a dupe for the Microsoft propaganda machine. And likely paid for your efforts as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.128.188 (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Microsoft Windows has been criticized numerous times. That's why we have and link to Criticism of Microsoft Windows. (Note that people keep trying to add information that has nothing to do with criticism to that page.) We just haven't documented any criticism that applies to every version. I tell "the world" that we've been over this before because we have. Could you please explain how having criticism in the articles for the versions they started in and not this generic article "doesn't wash"? - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 release date early?

I noticed that it says that there is going to be a new windows operating system, it doesn't have a name yet, but it has a code name, and it is Windows 7. Well the release date seems early, and I think it should be allot more than 3 years after vista.Foper (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft says that they are "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe", and that "the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar." - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard 2010 from other sources, this seems valid as is.

However, shouldnt the following tag be added to the page?

123.243.27.198 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard 2010 also. Does anyone know where Microsoft said it would be released in 2009? 24.151.249.73 (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Its apparently going to OEMs and partners in very late august/sept then its going RTM, to business customers etc... in like october/november, with a consumer release in time for the christmas/new year (late dec - mid feb) period

Windows 7 will be released on October 22 ([2]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.115.7.203 (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Stable release

Shouldn't Windows Server 2008 be mentioned as stable release of Windows instead of Vista? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.14.207 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, good point -- done (diff). I've put both Vista and Server 2008 in the template, making a distinction between the latest client and the latest server release. -- simxp (talk) 03:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesnt matter. They are the same codebase now. Server 2008 = Vista SP1. They are binary compatible. 134.36.92.18 (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Just Wondering... .NET Framework

Shouldn't the .NET Framework be listed somewhere in here? I searched the page with Firefox and it came up with no results for .NET. Also, I'm wondering WHAT windows comes with the .NET Framework by default. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

From .NET_Framework#.NET_Framework_1.0:

"This is the first release of the .NET Framework, released on 13 February 2002 and available for Windows 98, NT 4.0, 2000, and XP."

IIRC, you would have received it as an "update" if you had XP back then, and probably received it OEM at some later point, including in XP SP2. Certainly shipped by default on recent and current XP and Vista machines. The "benefits" are listed here. You can sift and form your own conclusion. I came up with "useless bloat", but that's just a personal opinion. Cheers! Unimaginative Username (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I see, because I was wondering where it came into play. On SP1, I didn't have it, so I was wondering when it came with windows. Even though it's useless bloat, some programs require it. For example, the CWCHEAT Database Editor. It's the same with the Java Runtime, some programs require that too. Though, both, I consider "bloat." This means that ReactOS doesn't need to have it packaged by default by using Mono or something. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the only OS that definately shipped with .NET is vista/server 2008 (Net 3.5) and Windows Server 2003 R2 (As part of IIS). This version was 1.1 MS have a special page on thier lifecycle page saying how they will extend support for .NET 1.1 on Server 2003 until the end of life for that OS, even although .NET 1.1 on all other platforms is unsupported.

134.36.92.18 (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

32 bit File Manager on Win3.11

Here's a citation for the line in the par. Hybrid 16/32-bit operating systems: "http://www.openwatcom.org/index.php/Exploring_Windows_3.x#Differences_Between_Windows_3.x_Versions". I couldn't add it because the page is semiprotected and I can't edit it (even thought I don't understand why I can't even if I log in with my account). Moreover, as long as we're talking about 32 bit disk access, this obviously can't be done through DOS that's a 16 bit OS. It's actually achieved with Win 311's VxD, that are 32 bit virtual device drivers.--Webwizard (talk) 09:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt have a 32 bit file manager though. The only OS to have that was Windows NT 3.1, Nt 3.5 and Nt 3.51 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations needed for Security section

"Consumer versions of Windows were originally designed for ease-of-use on a single-user PC without a network connection .. Windows NT and its successors .. are not designed with Internet security in mind "

They why does this say "Windows 95/Windows NT The best client platforms on the Internet".

What causal relationship is there between the design of Windows and the prevalence or lack of Internet usage. Unless you can provide verifiable historical citations as to their accuracy, they don't belong in a factual article.

emacsuser (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I found this link that shows internet usage was less prevalent in the early 90s. http://www.allaboutmarketresearch.com/internet.htm 193.36.230.96 (talk) 11:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember guys, correlation does not imply causation. --Scouto2 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In related logic that would mean that Windows got more secure as the Internet got more popular ? - yea ?? emacsuser (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Programming language?

Why doesn't the infobox say in what programming language Windows is written in like the linux kernel article does? --BiT (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Wine is Not an Emulator

The "Emulation Software" section refers to Wine and it's derivatives as emulators, when in fact Wine stands for Wine is Not an Emulator. http://winehq.org/myths#slow Cloud858rk (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

While the people that make Wine want to use the word "emulator" only for computer emulators (virtual machines), Wine does, in fact, emulate Windows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wine is an application layer, in the same way that the dos16, win32, posix and os/2 layers are in windows NT based systems (vista only features win32, all are present in nt4 for example) 134.36.92.18 (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Emulate - To imitate the function of (another system). This is in contrast to simulate, which strives to imitate the internal workings of an other system. Wine is an emulator, because as well as providing an application layer (like Bochs does a BIOS) it also serves to support PE Files and mimic external interfaces of the Windows Operating System not adequately mirrored in Linux. Defintions are also taken from independant verifiable sources, not the producers. We don't want yet another Second Life ("videogame") cabel where the definitions is referenced and argued to the ends of the earth by sourcs all with a vested interest of bias. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. By definition, Wine emulates windows functions, the same way as DOSBox works. According to their website (which I read when my computer had Ubuntu on it), most programs are written to the lowest denominator (such as Windows 95, NT, 2000), and they use basically the same functions. So, Wine has those functions built in for the program to use. --Scouto2 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Vague?

Isn't saying that "Vista's successor, Windows 7, is slated to be released sometime between July 1,2009 and June 30,2010" a tad vague? I think that this should be deleted until we get a more definitive date range. BrownsRock10 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Under security, it links to footnotes 22, 23 and 24 as citations. None of them say anything about the subject. The only place the phrase "not until Vista was the default user not an admin" even appears, according to Google, is on this page and some pages that copied it. 192.139.30.1 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows designed without a network connection

[sarcasm] How dare you ask for citations. Windows was never designed for the Internet, it never happened, as Wikipedia says so and if Wikipedia says something, it must be true. Else there would be citations and evidence as to the opposite. It must of been on some parallel universe that I remember running Netscape and Eurora email on Windows 3.1, without a network connection. As to how we managed to boot into Novell Netware without a network connection, that never happened either. And if WinNT was not designed with the Internet in mind, what were the networking hooks doing in the OS? [/sarcasm] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emacsuser (talk • contribs) 16:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Umm there were a few years in there where there was plenty of networking and no one had any intentions of using Windows on Darpa Net or the Information Super Highway. Think pre-Bill Clinton/Al Gore. --Riluve (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows 8

A job advertisement at Microsoft confirms that Microsoft will soon begin work on Windows 8 so this will need a page and section soon. http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobID=524FE97F-DB02-4501-AD0E-8CCAF1719BB3 194.80.32.9 (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There's no point in having a page about Win 8 before we know something more about it than the fact that it will probably exist at some point in the future. -- simxp (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Early development work, feature exploration, mockup UIs and etc started on "Windows 8" (it has a name that is not "Windows 8") more than a year ago. When mainstream reliable sources start to discuss it there will be a place for it here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Better Phrasing

• "ME is also the last DOS-based Windows release which does not include Microsoft Product Activation."

I think this would be better phrased something like: "ME is both the last DOS-based version of Windows, and the last released Windows version not to include the Microsoft Product Activation, which started in Windows XP".

NONE of the DOS-based series has ever included it, and saying it is the "last to include it" is ambiguous as it suggests there will be a future DOS-based version. ME is the last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.116.198.178 (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

What is this 'DOS based' nonsense? None of these systems are based on DOS and the NT family are largely compatible with DOS so what's the deal? You people need to leave this to the professionals and stop playing Computer Expert Sims™. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.128.188 (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Windows 95/98/Me boot loader, is, or is based on, DOS. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Josh is right - unless you are booting EFI on your Windows PC, it is "DOS Based". Unless you think it can magically get the memory map without calling a DOS INT15h - because it can't (and it does need memory). --Riluve (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I may have misread something so I want to be clear -ALL PC Windows since '95 ('95/'98/ME/WFWG/NT/'00/'03/'08/Vista) all of them still use DOS functionality to boot. They use INT13h to read the drives, they use INT10h to display anything to the screen, they use INT15h to find out the memory map (including size), they use F000h to find ACPI and IRQ routing, they read ports 70h/71h and look for DOS values in CMOS - they boot in 16bit mode for god sake even when the hardware is 64 bit! --Riluve (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between doing the same thing DOS does and being based on DOS. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In some cases that may be true - for example, both Linux and DOS can read FAT. However, when you are calling DOS APIs - as basically everything I mentioned is - especially when you are calling the DOS equivalent of kernel functions - like getting the memory allocation table, it is impossible to say it is not DOS based. You might as well say that Linux drivers are not based on Linux. --Riluve (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No...Linux drivers are not based on Linux. They are drivers for Linux. - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You can draw all the semantic lines you wish - when a person designs a linux driver, they base their decisions on the established Linux API. They don't just randomly call routines with random parameters. --Riluve (talk) 06:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this line completely because no one has any legitimate argument to support its claim (see DOS Patrimony below). That is, despite claims by the to the contrary, every x86 Windows that does not boot native EFI is based on DOS in a very critical way. This includes every official release MS have ever had for the x86 architecture, (Vista, 2003, 2008 - none - have a pure EFI boot support). Windows 7 may finally actually be the first x86 Windows to leave DOS behind - let us see if it happens. --Riluve (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Being based on software means being based on it--actually taking its code and evolving it into the new software. NT was written from scratch. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it was not written from scratch. Beside marketing hype, do you have any evidence that it was written from scratch? I have shown the specific examples that show it has key elements based on DOS. If your argument were valid, you could also argue that free DOS and DRDOS are not based on PC/MSDOS - because they did not directly copy any MSDOS code. The argument is fundamentally flawed, however, because if a single line of code was used or not is irrelevant. The important/critical aspect are the specifications and functionality of MSDOS which are copied in FREEDOS and NT and thus makes them "DOS based" in an important and significant way. NT was written with the DOS specification sitting on the table - with DOS in mind.
--Riluve (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Release Date

Windows 7 is being released on October 22. Microsoft still hasn't made an announcement about prices. 24.115.7.203 (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)jake

Footnote 25

Footnote 25 is a 'plant' - it is phony, a fake. Footnote 25 is supposed to be a reference to how NT was 'designed for security' which of course is pure bollocks. NT is a makeover of Cutler's Emerald/Prism which in turn is based closely on his earlier VMS. The model Microsoft used has nothing to do with the model Cutler had in mind. NT and its successors have NEVER been certified as secure in an Internet environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.128.188 (talk) 03:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is ReactOS listed as an emulator?

My understanding is that ReactOS executes Windows functions natively, without any translation or emulation.--Frozenport (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It emulates Windows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then, any GNU/Linux is essentially an emulated version of Unix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.234.26.32 (talk) 04:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Plus One. ReactOS isn't an emulator, neither is GNU/Linux. 24.241.229.136 (talk) 22:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DOS Patrimony

I removed the following claim which is shear non-sense: ", and was unencumbered by any Microsoft DOS patrimony"

Every x86 compatible versions of Windows -to this day- still has at least 2 direct and undeniable examples of DOS patrimony.

1- Windows can still only boot to a single fixed drive - device 80h (C:). It recognizes device 81h, 82h, 83h . . . etc, but even if they are bootable, it will ONLY boot to device 80h. Once it tries device 80h, it will never try 81h, or 82h. To grasp how lame this limitation is, compare this operation to removable media which is given device numbers starting at 00h (A:). If 00h is passed as the boot device, but turns out to not be bootable, it will try drive 01h(b:).

The only rational excuse for this behavior is that it is a limitation that DOS shared as well.

2- All PC windows still boot in real mode (16 bit mode) and read their media (device 80h, 00h, or 01h)in 16 bit mode and use the 16bit DOS interrupt INT13 to read the media.

3- Oh, I came up with a 3rd, Windows still gets its RTC from the location as specified by DOS and uses the DOS CMOS checksum to ensure the DOS compatible portion of CMOS is valid.

--Riluve (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

4- Sorry, came up with a 4th (technically you could consider this 2 separate things), PC Windows also requires the signatures _SMB_ and RSD_PTR_ to be located in E000:0 or F000:0 - when this area is already over-burdened. Considering NT, or 2000, or XP, or ME, or Vista can address at least 4G of memory, the ONLY reason it makes sense to use this specific 128k region, is because it makes the signatures DOS compatible.

--Riluve (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

6 or 7 or 8? Yes I came up with another and shame on me for not mentioning this 1st! Obviously I lost track of which dependency this is because many of my previous examples are more like 2 DOS dependencies. OK - even before I get started on this one I thought of another, but don't let me get side tracked - this is a doosie! The ONLY way for PC Windows to know the memory map (how much memory is available and which memory is valid) is through DOS interrupt - INT15h. Without that DOS compatible interrupt - NO MEMORY for Windows!

OK, I think I have made the case that all PC windows is still carrying around DOS baggage. Windows 7 may have an optional (and functional) EFI boot loader, but let them release it and test it first before they come back here with these claims of having left DOS behind. The testing is very important because Vista's EFI loader is not 100% DOS free, it still uses DOS INT10h for video! lord - see sorry it never ends!

BTW - I say PC Windows because Windows CE and Itanium Windows are very much DOS free.

--Riluve (talk) 02:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Some of these are just aspects of the x86 processor; they have nothing to do with DOS. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Unencumbered by DOS patrimony means it wasn't based on--written from--DOS. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have shown that it was based on DOS with clear, exact, verifiable examples. Your defense, without any evidence, is to say "no it isn't".--Riluve (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a single thing I listed here is a limitation of an x86 processor that can run Windows. They are 100% DOS API limitations. In fact, the first operational code on the x86 -before MS DOS or PC DOS was written- only had one of these limitations. Please try to show that a single limitation I have mentioned is a limitation of a contemporary processor. I can show how they are all part of DOS. --Riluve (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

An x86 processor does not switch from 16-bit mode until the OS tells it to; it is impossible for an x86 OS to already be in 64-bit mode when it starts booting.- Josh (talk | contribs) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. Well you are mixing ideas. Here is the important part - after the reset vector, the processor can (and usually will) be out of 16bit mode in less than 15 lines of assembly code. Obviously that will not "count" as an OS - its probably another 100,000 lines of code after that until there is an attempt to pass control to any OS. Here is the part you haven't considered - how do you expect the BIOS to tell the OS how much memory there is if the BIOS itself is limited to 16bit addressing? Because the OS HAS to get memory information from the BIOS, the BIOS HAS to be able to address all of the memory first. There is no point in waiting around, so that is the first thing it does - get out of 16bit mode. So here is the frustrating part, after all that work - 100,000 lines of code later, the BIOS will go back to 16bit mode just before it passes to Windows because Windows is ONLY using the DOS API. Unless, as I mentioned, it boots a full UEFI solution, like OS-X does. Only then does the BIOS not have to go back into a DOS compatibility mode before passing control to the OS. --Riluve (talk) 07:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I must have been tired. If I wanted to be more clear, I would have just mentioned that OSX does "boot" in native mode (which means 32bit for 32bit hardware and 64bit for 64bit hardware). EFI will long have switched to native mode and does not need to switch into DOS compatibility mode to boot OSX. However, EFI does have to switch into DOS compatibility mode to boot any currently released PC Windows. Because both Windows and OSx both run on the same hardware (processor) it is obviously not a limitation of the hardware in any way shape or form. --Riluve (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

This conversation is hilarious, considering NTOS boots on SGI Visual series, DEC Alpha, PPC, IA64, etc, where these DOS "dependencies" don't even exist. In any case, this has nothing to do with improving the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

So are you arguing that NTLoader is not part of windows or that Ntdetect.com is not part of NTLoader? I mean you have to draw a line someplace. Look at the freaking file name - its a .com file. The ONLY thing a .com file is compatible with is DOS or CP/M! It is 16bit real-mode relocatable code without any fix-ups! Wait, it might be that you are claiming Windows is compatible with CP/M.

At any rate, you blithely say NTOS boots on all of these systems, but you ignore that you are talking about completely different versions of the kernel booting from different loaders. Sure, MS can package 5 different kernels into a single zip file and call it one operating system, but on the technical level is it a single operating system? If you argue it is a single operating system, then the x86 "permutation" requires these DOS calls in order to boot - no ands ifs or buts. --Riluve (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You are simply, and fundamentally, mistaken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Can you provide anything besides your opinion to back up your claim? I have provided like 12 very specific examples. Let me be more specific. Please try to refute these clear and specific points which show that you are wrong:
1-Ntdetect.com is an integral part of Windows for the x86.
2-x86 Windows can not function without Ntdetect.com (or a functional clone).
3-Ntdetect.com is designed to operate in a DOS environment.

If you can refute these basic facts, then we are in a position to philosophize further. If you cannot refute them, you fundamentally have not even the simplest of cases. --Riluve (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

SGI Visual Workstation 540 SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

1, 2-x86 Windows Vista/7 does not include ntdetect.com at all. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Josh - I will take this as a clear admission that NTdetect.com is a fundamental, integrated part of previous version of Windows AND is functionally a DOS program. As for Vista still requiring DOS support, I can only give anecdotal evidence, as my direct knowledge is a corporate secret. Vista will not boot without some parts of the DOS environment - unless some update has rectified the situation. You can verify this deficiency yourself though by buying an Intel motherboard that is "EFI Optimized" (which means no support for DOS) and trying to boot Vista. Windows 7 should work - thus the crux of my entire argument.--Riluve (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this nonsense "Me is also the last DOS-based Windows release which does not include Microsoft Product Activation.", because the best case that people have for this claim is because "they say so". --Riluve (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry Schmucky, I completely missed your attempt to make a point there, i.e. the SGI Visual Workstation 540. In fact, this "example" you are trying to use actually proves my case - so thank you for bringing it up (but you should have done some more research before you did). Turns out, when investigating the NT/2000 bootloader, SGI actually ran into the case where Microsoft had mistakenly IFDEF'd DOS compatibility into the x86 architecture, making the same amateur mistake that Josh did earlier in this argument, i.e. assuming the DOS limitations were x86 limitations. They are not.

So as I specifically mentioned the requirements would be, SGI created a layer on top of the standard ARCS IPL interface, to provide NT with its required DOS interfaces - so that NT could boot. I will give you credit for this very good try though - it shows that you almost know what you were talking about. However, your inability to break any one of the 3 fundamental points I mentioned earlier shows that you are simply wrong.

Another interesting point is that SGI had to include a DOS virtual machine into the boot sequence so they could support PCI cards with x86 BIOSes on them, because - what do you know, they all run under the DOS environment. A standard x86 box does not include this DOS virtual machine, ONLY because it is exactly running a DOS environment, at least until right after NTdetect.com has done its job. And as it should finally be clear to you, NTdetect.com is a DOS program. Point-set-match.
--Riluve (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft assumed the limitations it had written into DOS were limitations of x86? That's just silly. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it was silly. But to be clear what they really did was not account for the idea that someone would boot an x86 without supporting DOS. Thus, they treated two logically separate ideas -DOS limitations/dependencies and -x86 hardware specifics with a single code base/build switch. If you think it is so implausible, perhaps you can explain why the 320 & 540 both had a HAL - no other x86 platform needs a proprietary HAL to run Windows.
--Riluve (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh dang Schmucky, I have to take back the credit I gave you for having a clue. If you had read the article you linked to, you would have seen that SGI had to provide its own HAL, to make up for their lack of full DOS support in the boot process. Yes, ok, I forgot that detail to, but it strengthens my case beyond measure! Not that it needs any help. I thought this might require me to add a new stipulation to my 3 previous points, but looking back, I have it covered nicely in #3:
3-Ntdetect.com is designed to operate in a DOS environment.

So the HAL helps to provide the environment - in places that the ARCS-DOS compatibility layer fall short (e.g. ASL). OK - what else did I miss anything?
--Riluve (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

So, besides being factually wrong, you are stubborn, rude, and insulting. This conversation is not about improving the article. You removed one sentence, which didn't actually have anything to do with this conversation thread. I'm done. If you have something else to say about improving the article, you should start a new subject heading. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I have begged you to provide a sliver of evidence to support your claims, but you stubbornly refuse. You seem to think you can wave facts away with your mere opinion. As for rude, don't be upset that I responded to your behavior in kind.--Riluve (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

MS-DOS is merely a bootloader in Windows 9x --> not true

There's a sentence in the Windows 95 section of this article stating that MS-DOS would have been degraded to a mere boot loader for Windows 4 in the Windows 95 bundle. Around this time, there has been alot of research of this Microsoft-originating claim, and it was shown, that this statement does not hold any truth in it. Therefore, this MS-propaganda-influenced sentence bares substance and should be changed or removed.

The most obvious to see fact for normal end-users is that it is very easy to stop MS-DOS 7.xx showing its "Windows splash screen" at start up, so you could see the DOS drivers loading, boot to the COMMAND.COM shell and start the GUI by typing in "WIN" at the prompt, just like you did in previous versions. However, it could be argued (and was!), that this was a special mode for compatibility. It isn't, but it requires much deeper knowledge of the internals of the system to prove, that, even when the Windows 4 GUI is up and running, it fundamentely depends on DOS actively running "underneath". It has been shown by experts, that Windows 4 will fatally crash immediately (within milliseconds), if the DOS underneath would suddenly stop servicing the constant stream of Windows API requests, clearly contradicting the idea of DOS being nothing but mere bootloader for Windows. In reality, DOS is a vital part of this hybrid architecture and Windows 4.00 (Windows 95), 4.10 (Windows 98), 4.99 (Windows ME) could not live a single second without it. Actually, this was one of the many issues discussed and demonstrated in court in the Caldera vs. Microsoft case, and anyone interested in the technical details can find very in-deep discussions of this on the net. Why is it important to keep this fact straight? It is important from a historical point of view, because by - first - denying its existance - and later - by undervalueing the importance of MS-DOS in Windows 9x, Microsoft basically destroyed any market for alternative DOS operating systems, which offered additional functionality and would have been beneficial for plain DOS users as well as for Windows 4.xx users (more free resources, significantly better memory management, smoother multitasking, smarter command line tools, just to name a few). 84.63.86.38 (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Picture Caption

Why did someone edit the caption of the Windows 7 screenshot in the infobox? Windows 7 Ultimate edition has a different desktop wallpaper than Starter edition. The caption should clarify the fact the screenshot is of Windows 7 Ultimate editon. See here. It has a picture of the Starter wallpaper, clearly different from the other editions, and the caption states "The Windows 7 Starter desktop, with final wallpaper that is unique to this version." This is from Paul Thurrot's "WinSuperSite", which is a source used multiple times in the article. It is a reliable source. Please clarify in the caption. Thanks in advance. This is TechOutsider. 70.153.241.200 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.154.249.132 (talk)

ReactOS

ReactOS isn't just aiming for XP; it's also aiming for Vista now too. 24.241.229.253 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Server 2008

The article states that the latest version of Windows Server is "Windows Server 2008". I always thought that it was "Windows Server 2008 R2". Should this be changed? Correct me if I am wrong. Twistor96 (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First version of Windows to be a true OS?

I couldn't help notice this sentence: "Windows 95 also removed the reliance on the MS-DOS command prompt, making it the first true operating system in the Windows family." Um, what? Reliance on a command prompt means it's not a "true" operating system?? Althepal (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the sentence is using "true" to mean "standalone": it's just pointing out that, unlike Win 3.1 & earlier, Win95 isn't just a shell on top of DOS underneath (though it still used DOS as a bootloader). In any case, it's been removed now. -- simxp (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Article update + An objection

Aren't we going to update the "Windows History" section to include Windows 7?? Besides, I'm not sure about Windows 8. The link mentioned above leads me to Micro Soft Careers, and it has no info about Windows 8. TKhaldi (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

reference in Security section isn't formatted correctly

It's showing up in the text as: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdef (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

References

Differences between Windows 7 and Windows XP

I wanted to have a clear picture of the basic differences between Windows 7 (The latest version of Windows) and Windows XP.

What are the new feature added to it or if I want to recomment my users then how would I differentiate and rate the two versions?

Please help me finding out the basic improvements made to Windows XP to make it Windows 7.

--Anmol Chaturvedi 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaturvedian (talk • contribs)

Uncommonly?

Why in the world does this entence exist in this article: 'Windows CE (officially known as Windows Embedded), is an edition of Windows that runs on minimalistic computers, like satellite navigation systems and, uncommonly, mobile phones.' I refer the the comma enclosed uncommonly remark. Since Windows Mobile is, in fact, layered on top of Windows CE and Windows Mobile, in point of fact, runs on an extremely large number of mobile phones, this makes no sense. I say it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.240.83 (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo under "File Permissions"

I think the word "directory" should be "directly" Fgadgethead (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)fgadgethead, 1/20/2010

Windows 2000 version number in article slightly wrong

Version reported for Windows 2000 in table under "Timeline of releases" sub section is slightly wrong. Table lists 5.0.2195 when in fact typing "ver" at the command line on a windows 2000 box will yield 5.00.2195 (an extra middle zero.) I would edit the page myself but cannot. Nathanlh (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Windows 7 Release Date UPDATE

Microsoft has posted the October date on their Windows 7 site, it says :

When will Windows 7 be available?

Windows 7 will be generally available on October 22, 2009. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/pre-order-faq.aspx

Is there real evidence of Windows 8 or are they just trying to joke that Windows 8 is what triggers the end of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.3.65 (talk) 05:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"This was bad"

I don't know about this anecdote:
"During 2004 part of the Source Code for Windows 2000 was leaked onto the internet. This was bad for Microsoft as the same kernel used in Windows 2000 was used in Windows XP." This isn't well written and it isn't explained how it was bad for them. Did they lose customers? Was a new virus created with the information? Did their stock fall?Everett3 (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Narrator

How do I turn off this feature? I don't need it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.237.1 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Security section needs an update

I added an out of date tag to the security part of the windows article because almost all of the information in the section is pre vista, and vista provided many more security updates than just UAC and Windows defender (which was not mentioned in there to be a part of vista and 7) It doesn't have things that were introduced in windws 7 like hardware virtulization.Johnclow13 09:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnclow13 (talk • contribs)

slight clarification/correction

Toward the top of the Windows article, before the description of Versions 3.0 & 3.1, the sentence, "Unlike MS-DOS, Windows allowed users to execute multiple graphical applications at the same time" should be corrected to something like " ...... multiple AND graphical ...... ), to avoid the erroneous implication that MS-DOS would be a graphical OS.

Thank you

01:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.73.139 (talk)

FYI, MS-DOS did allow graphical applications to run. MS-DOS, especially MS-DOS 6, had components with graphical user interface. Fleet Command (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 63.68.134.10, 21 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

cricrosoft -> Microsoft

63.68.134.10 (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks for pointing that out. Celestra (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed for Security section

None of the linked to citations [30][31] actually point to anything that verifies the historical accuracy of the opening paragraph.

Viralmeme (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Under Wikipedias verifiability policy, could anyone provide verfiable historical citations for the following statement.

"Windows NT and its successors are designed for security (including on a network) and multi-user PCs, but were not initially designed with Internet security in mind as much, since, when it was first developed in the early 1990s, Internet use was less prevalent.[24]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Security

"The hottest content server on the Internet? Microsoft Marvel. It’s already integrated with all of these services and has a huge content base and commercial vendor support. Perhaps most importantly, Marvel solves the difficult electronic commerce problem well ahead of the Internet: the ability to securely purchase goods in a networked environment"

http://www.microsoft.com/about/companyinformation/timeline/timeline/docs/di_killerapp_InternetMemo.rtf emacsuser (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeline of release : bad information for XP 64

Hi,

Source: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/help/learn-how-to-install-windows-xp-service-pack-3-sp3

see note:

There's no SP3 for the 64-bit version of Windows XP. If you're running the 64-bit version of Windows XP with SP2, you have the latest service pack and will continue to be eligible for support and receive updates until April 8, 2014.

--62.23.212.55 (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

There has been numerous amounts of edit wars over "Support ended on (date)" and "Unsupported as of (date)". Someone changed "Unsupported as of (date)" to "Support ended on (date)" for Windows 95-Windows ME. Should the page be protected and other pages that have the edit wars? As I have no problem with "Unsupported as of (date)". --Quoladdie (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Both of you! Stop it! Now! Wikipedia does not just belong to you two. It's everyone's. It doesn't matter who started it. Both of you two, stop it and develop a consensus before further edits. Fleet Command (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

So, has the problem been resolved? What's the agreed phrasing then? NoNews! 04:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Right now, both have stopped. Of course, both have reached dangerous borderlines too, i.e. the 3RR. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To help gain consensus, I'll put my opinion that it should be "support ended". This is the date that Microsoft officially ends support (and I think we can infer the "Microsoft officially" bit); there will still be other support by the community in newsgroups, by company IT departments and so on.

That being said, I find it trivial either way. Anyone reading the article is likely to infer that it means support by Microsoft; the important thing is the date itself. And even there, I'm not going to quibble on whether there was support on the actual day itself (i.e. was it unsupported that day or the day after). Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is so trivial that I don't see a need for a consensus either. "Not supported", "unsupported", "support ended" and such are all synonyms. I prefer none over the other. Change them to whatever you like but if I see one more instance of such edit warring over such trifle a thing, I'll call ANI. Fleet Command (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Newfrazer78 that consensus should be reached first.

There's no need to protect the page. Si Trew (talk) 04:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

One idea for a good clear wording: "The last day on which it was supported was...". Jeh (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have a better idea: Abandon this whole color of the bike shed matter and get down to constructive editing. It makes absolutely no different to no one. Fleet Command (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Emulation software

I don't know why this section is called "Emulation software" when it mainly covers Wine (software), where WINE stands for WINE Is Not an Emulator. I think it should be changed, perhaps to "compatibility software" or something. Si Trew (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe emulation software should be moved to a Linux-based article or something, as people who want to know about Windows probably won't want to know about crappy program emulators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.218.20.203 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED before making a comment like this.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What are talking about, Jasper Deng? Have you commented in wrong talk page? This issue has already been taken care of. WP:NOTCENSORED never ever applied to this issue. Fleet Command (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Market share misleading

Note that market share reported by Webmasterpro, W3Counter, and W3Schools are all going to be skewed away from older OSes and away from Windows in general, as these sites cater to web professionals. According to a recent survey of web designers, a majority of them use Apple computers — clearly, not representative of operating system market share in general.

I would recommend these 3 sources be removed from the table, as they are far too specialized to be put in the same context as the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.50.8.11 (talk) 19:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

 Disagree. Where is this "recent survey" that you are talking about and what is your evidence for the inapplicability of these websites? And how do you explain the fact that these three show approximately the same stats as the other two sources? Fleet Command (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Spoken Article

I was wondering what everyone would think of a spoken article for Microsoft Windows. --Charles E. Keisler (talk), Network+ 18:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

i like that idea ~~yougo1000~~

I love the idea. Fleet Command (talk) 12:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dale3242, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} In the section titled "Early Versions" it is stated that the early versions of MS Windows (1.0 through 3.1) ran on MS-DOS. In fact the early versions of MS Windows would run perfectly on DR-DOS as well. Please see the section on DR-DOS. (Also, I used to run MS Windows on DR-DOS myself.) I think the section would be improved by having it state that MS Windows ran on both DR and MS DOS.

Dale3242 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Check this source out: AARD check Also check this article: AARD code. (Don't go telling me that Wikipedia can't be used as a source because I'm not proposing such a thing.) Fleet Command (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Overally, this is an article written with as the literacy-style oriented introduction. Maybe, this is why people having problems when they are using Windows operating system online for more depth than this writing ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gggbgggb (talk • contribs) 07:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Please add to article

{{edit semi-protected}}

ARM platform support

On the 6th of January 2011, Microsoft demonstrated a version of Windows running on ARM-based platforms, such as OMAP and Snapdragon. It had a recompiled version of Microsoft Office 2010 and recompiled printer drivers. Shares of UK-based ARM Holdings rose by as much as 13 per cent after the announcement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.69.168 (talk)

It's more relevant to Windows 8, in my opinion.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wine should be spelled with a capital W

The Wine_(software) article spells Wine as 'Wine' -- not 'wine', but this article currently has:

Since wine was licensed under the LGPL Cedega has been unable to port the improvements made to wine to their proprietary codebase.

• 'wine' appears twice here instead of 'Wine'.
• I suspect that it should also use the word 'relicensed' instead of 'licensed'.

Darwine — A bundling of Wine to the PowerPC Macs running OS X by running wine on top of QEMU. Intel Macs use the same Wine as other *NIX x86 systems.

• 'wine' appears once here instead of 'Wine'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.8.36 (talk) 08:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done except for licensed → relicensed as I am not sure that is correct. –CWenger (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Figure source bias

This way or that way. Cf. this one! The cherrypicked sources in the article are from sites selling Windows s/w. The one I provided was from a learning resource abt W3 which of course biases the figures the opposite way because Webbies tend to use Linux more often. I think the Windows Desktop figure of 90% is very approximate, and more like 85%. I think there aren't reliable sources for making anything but very vague statements like Windows dominates the desktop market. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows NT is not true multi-user

"Fast User Switching is not available on Windows XP Professional-based computers that are part of a domain network. " http://support.microsoft.com/kb/279765 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Fast User Switching is not available for domain computers because it is not needed. Domains have Terminal Services (recently renamed Remote Desktop Services). Multiple users can use a domain workstation without needing Fast User Switching. The only issue that stops them is $$$. Fleet Command (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you say that Microsoft is wrong? I have a Windows XP Professional connected to a Domain and I can not use Fast User Switching as Microsoft says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I say you are wrong! You think "True multi-user" = "Fast User Switching always working". Wrong! "True multi-user" = "multiple users being able to login to one computer". They can do that with Terminal Services too. Fleet Command (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see. So, we can state that Windows has "True multi-user", but partial "Fast User Switching" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.127.207.152 (talk) 08:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no mention of the joint IBM/Microsoft project that ultimately led to both Windows and OS/2

This is a decidely one-sided history, with no mention of the seminal work in the graphics engine done by IBM engineers and still part of Windows. If the owners of this topic are interested in a more complete history, I will help. I have some first hand knowledge as I worked for IBM at the time (and still do) but was not directly on the OS team; I was an interested outside party as my application had to run on the new operating system. I may be able to contact some of those that were actually on the teams in IBM that worked with M/S before the falling out between the companies that led to M/S lauching Windows and IBM launching OS/2.

Please let me know if you are interested. Email (Email deleted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.49.251 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not accept first-hand knowledge per Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia's not a publisher of original thoughts; it is at best a secondary source. Have a reliable publisher publish your info and then we may cover it. Fleet Command (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The history of Microsoft Windows covers OS/2 to some degree. More about this could be said in the OS/2 article if you have good sources, e.g., IBM redbooks would be ideal. A former user of OS/2 Warp Connect: 89.204.153.138 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Who is Chase Bishop

Hi, in the Versions of Windows section, there is a credit to someone named Chase Bishop,number 6 in the list of references. The citation doesn't list an article, and I have been unable to find any reference to him online except sites listing this article as their source. This either needs to be cited back to an article, or removed if it can't be verified. This might just be someone who cited an old magazine article, but it needs to be checked and referenced properly in any case. Spacecase61091 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)spacecase61091

Agree. The initial statement under "history" seems bogus to me: "The history of Windows dates back to September 1981, when Chase Bishop, a computer scientist, designed the first model of an electronic device and project "Interface Manager" was started. It was announced in November 1983 (after the Apple Lisa, but before the Macintosh) under the name "Windows"".

It does not serve my memory, and if true, what has it to do with Microsoft? Is there any source for this at all? There is no such Bishop, or show references please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.6.249 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly Incorrect and Unverified Statement

With reference to the following statement in Microsoft_Windows#History:

"Microsoft has taken two parallel routes in its operating systems. One route has been for the home user and the other has been for the professional IT user. The dual routes have generally led to home versions having greater multimedia support and less functionality in networking and security, and professional versions having inferior multimedia support and better networking and security."

I believe this statement should be removed. While some Linux distributions' (1 2) server versions have entirely different kernels than their desktop counterparts, Mac OS (1 2) and Windows (1 2) server versions only differ from desktop releases in the administration utilities, documentation, and software packages shipped with the product. The references I have provided are not the most reliable, one is only an implication- I apologize. I don't remember where I originally learned this.

Thoughts? wsoder (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

WINDOWS vista and 7 user password HACKING: It is very easy to hack the windows 7 and vista passwords Step: At first you need two things one Is pendrive and linux os Download linux os like SLAX Put It into pendrive and make pendrive bootable Boot from the pendrive open the windows partition goto WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\ Rename osk.exe file to osk2.exe Copy and past the cmd.exe to osk.exe Restart the system boot your windows In the password field click window+u key It whill open a window select onscreen keyboard Click apply and ok It whill open the command prompt Type the command "control userpasswords2" without quit It open the window

Select the user and click the reset password Now the password is reset Close the window Enjoy the hacking!!!!!!!!!!! (by kongu chutti)

Terrorking6666 (talk) 17:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done, unsourced and not exactly encyclopedic--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, physical access to the machine and the ability to run a different OS against its hard drive allows all kinds of things in many OSs. No news here. btw, this hack is impossible with an encrypted boot volume. Jeh (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Latest unsable release

The "latest unstable release" position in the infobox is wrong. As of today, there is no official release with a name "Windows 8". It should be "Windows Developer Preview".--Azarien (talk) 08:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

New Windows logo

I think the article must be updated with the new Windows logo: (Make a proper version if needed).

• I think it doesn't deserve that much coverage. An image is not necessary, but one or two sentences may be fine.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor Aside

This isn't something "verifiable" to my knowledge, hence can't be in the main article, but I've always found the "XP" moniker to be interesting in light of the codename used for its predecessor, Windows 2000, aka "Cairo". I.E.... consider what the Greek names for "X" and "P" are... It strikes me as a programmer's in-joke, much like "Windows NT", aka WNT, is one letter up from Vax VMS (akin to IBM vis-a-vis 'HAL' 9000's one-down). Be nice to have someone verify the XP joke if they know someone on the dev team.
OBloodyHell (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Microsoft, the XP stands for experience, XP being a common abbreviation for experience, especially in video games. In this instance, XP is the "Windows eXPerience". Outside of that, I'm not aware of any other meaning. - SudoGhost 05:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you, but Windows NT actually got the NT brand before it even became Windows, says our own article, so the VMS theory isn't possible. But as far as I know, XP does stand for eXPerience. pcuser42 (talk) 06:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012

Emulation software is bad cause : Wine is not an emulator.

The name of this section should be : Windows API for third party systems or Windows compatibility layer.

208.92.19.204 (talk) 21:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The section hedaing seems to match the current content. If you want to find a reliable source which makes the claim that Wine is not emulation software, then the text and the heading can be changed. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Windows For Workgroups

I don't have an independent source for this (yet), but Windows for Workgroups, version 3.11, was the first 32-bit version of Windows. Despite the minor version number, it was a major architecture change and should be included. It was born as an independent project and green-lighted because of Gates' frustration with the glacial pace of IBM's development of OS/2. This definitely should be included in the article.

ALloydFlanagan (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Windows for Workgroups 3.11 was not a 32-bit version of Windows and it was not any sort of major change to Windows 3.1; a quick look at the installation media will demonstrate this. It did support Win32 apps via "Win32S" but only if they used a rather limited subset of Win32 APIs. Jeh (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Supporting the Internet Protocol stack out-of-the-box was a pretty major change, Jeh. Wolverine stack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.180.229 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a significant addition, yes. But it wasn't a major change to what was already there. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Operating System

"Time-sharing operating systems schedule tasks for efficient use of the system and may also include accounting for cost allocation of processor time, mass storage, printing, and other resources." per wiki Operating system

Windows uses a 16 millisecond task swap clock. No one in this day and age can say that is efficient, ususally 1 to 4 % is acceptable overhead for task swap, Windows is like, 0.01%? therefore pseudo. On my crappy I don't care embedded systems I use 4 milliseconds. Would you want your car to ask you to update and reboot before thinking about turning off the ignition? Windows is a over-priced imitation of an operating system, which is officially banned by the military on mission critical applications. If you want cites, I have them.  :- ) DCS 04:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a point? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This entire post sounds like nitpicking to troll to me. pcuser42 (talk) 05:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

If you (OP) weren't an established error, I'd just delete this as what Pcuser42 said and WP:NOTAFORUM. As for your comment, OP, what exactly are you trying to say here?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the screenshot be of the newest version (Windows 8)?

Windows 8 is more representative of the current state of the OS than is Windows 7; so should the screenshot be of it (just as the screenshot for Mac OS is of Mountain Lion, which isn't out yet)? This could be it. --CottageDream (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO we should go for a screenshot of the most recent version for the mass market, which in this case would be Windows 7 SP1. The same really should apply to OS X and Linux. pcuser42 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pcuser42. The most recent OS for the mass market is Windows 7, and Windows 8 is not coming out until October according to news sources. So we should wait until at least a couple of months before that to change the image. And about the Mac OS, it depends when Mt. Lion is coming out. If it will be coming out soon then leave the image, but if it won't be for several months you should probably change it back. Cadiomals (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8

I was on the Mac OS and the Ubuntu page, and they both have the main picture as their future release. Perhaps we should put Windows 8 as the main photo on the Windows Page?

Matt99clancy (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussed above, we opted to keep Windows 7's. IMO OS X and Linux should have screenshots of their current release on their articles. pcuser42 (talk) 05:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But... if that is the direction that Windows is heading, and what Windows well... currently looks like, then shouldn't we show that?

Matt99clancy (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's where Windows is heading, but it's not there yet. Windows 7 is still the "current" version, as that's what anyone who buys Windows today will see. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012

From Microsoft_Windows#Future_of_Windows: "Microsoft posted a blog entry in Dutch on October 22, 2010 hinting that Windows 8 would be released in roughly 1 year."
I want this 1 spelled out to "one". It feels more natural that way.

81.231.245.214 (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused by one thing--I've got no problem with the wording suggestion and I suspect that WP:MOS would actually agree with you--why does that say one year when the reference says two? I'm feeling like I'm missing something obvious. --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NUMERAL recommends that numbers one through nine are spelled out. In any case, though, it doesn't say "1" there. It says "two." There's nothing to change here, anyway. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 April 2012

Please Change the windows 7 desktop screenshot to windows 8 start screen screenshot because windows 8 is the latest windows editions.

AldeyWahyuPutra (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed before, and Windows 7 was determined to still be the current version. Windows 8 is still in development. pcuser42 (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

What's a window (lower case) in Windows (upper case)?

Hi, shouldn't there also be an article for a Windows window? (I mean, how the Windows windows are built, what they consist of etc.? I was looking on the internet about the information and it's really not east to find. Maybe my comment will motivate someone to create a wiki page about Windows windows ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.17.240.177 (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you a troll? Windows "windows" are just an interface for users to interact with programs. They consist of nothing than a few lines of code and graphics. Or even on a lower level, they consist of a sequence of 1's and 0's. Good enough? 2001:5C0:1501:0:F9BA:41C3:3822:C1A4 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is something to be talked about here, like the User32 APIs that create windows, the internal data structures that represent them, the window's associated thread and message queue, the GetMessage loop ("message pump"), the exceptions that are called "modal dialogs", etc. However it goes way beyond the scope of a general interest article about an operating system family, particularly as the different Windows families have done this in substantially different ways. I don't think the "general interest" reader can be assumed to know what a thread or a message queue are, or be interested. zI don't know if we have articles on Windows User32 programming but if we do, that's where that stuff would go. Jeh (talk) 19:50, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows flag update

Should the Windows flag be updated to the one used in Win8? --176.25.115.91 (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not yet. Wait for release. pcuser42 (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Update it. It's been released as of August 1, 2012. It is just not in the store yet. But it's been released to manufacturing (RTM Build 9200) and you can download it from Microsoft. 2001:5C0:1501:0:F9BA:41C3:3822:C1A4 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 RTM - Lates Unstable Release?

Since when is Windows 8 NT 6.2 (Build 9200) an unstable release as shown in the info box? Build 9200 is the RTM (release to manufacturing). Why would Microsoft allow an unstable version to go into retail stores? Or does it somehow (wiki)magically become stable ones it is in the store? Where is the source that says Windows 8 RTM is unstable? Windows 8 RTM Build 9200 is the latest stable release and it is already available to anyone with an Internet connection. That also means the screenshot in the info box should be updated as well. 2001:5C0:1501:0:597D:25E3:BF57:E36F (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

New Logo and Screenshot

Are we waiting for Windows 8 to be released to the public to change the logo and screenshot? Because technically it has been finished and sent to manufacturers. It's a finish OS and as of August 1, it has been distributed Matt99clancy (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows Defender update

Hasn't this name been changed to Microsoft Security Essentials? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendigo17 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The two are still separate, and in Windows 8, the opposite seems to happen - Windows Defender is replaced by Microsoft Security Essentials which is then renamed to a new Windows Defender.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Wine is not an emulator

Wine is an recursive acronym which stands for Wine is not an emulator. ReactOS is an operating system (definitely not an emulator). Nevertheless, the "Emulation Software" section is basically a list containing Wine, its various children, and ReactOS.

In light of this, I suggest that the title of the "Emulation Software" section be changed. Perhaps to "Software Emulation and Compatibility Layers," or "Compatibility Software."

It also may be worth mentioning virtualization software like VMWare and VirtualBox. In which case "Virtualization and Software Compatibility" might be a more appropriate title. Daniel.noland (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please rename "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows (operating system)"

Russian users are begins renaming: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8E/2_%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8F_2012#Microsoft_Windows_.E2.86.92_Windows Please rename "Microsoft Windows" to "Windows (operating system)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation when a natural disambiuation can be used instead. - SudoGhost 16:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Site: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What happens on one project has no effect on the others. The Russian Wikipedia is a separate project, and operated by its own consensus and has no impact outside of its own project. More importantly, where as "windows" is not a word in Russian, that's not the case in English, and a natural disambiguation is already in place, there's no need for a parenthetical disambiguation. - SudoGhost 16:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Known Security Bugs in Windows

There was a bug in Windows XP (I don't know if it was fixed in SP3), that allowed getting system privilages on the computer, by a simple combination of CMD commands: taskkill /f "explorer.exe" /im (killing the explorer) at 0:00 /interactive "explorer.exe" (when 0:00 is a planned time to run a command, to perform the hack you usually set the timer to the current time plus one minute, since there is no option to work with seconds, and there is no way to perform calculations with the variable %time%) After doing it, Windows will generate the desktop for the user.

Another hack is called "MS11-080 Privilege Escalation Exploit", and it works with XP, Vista & 7. It's an exploit wrriten in Python. The scripts generates a shell with system privilages.

Should there be an article about bugs in MS's products? Galzigler (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

No seperate article, because none of these work in a current release with User Account Control (UAC) turned on. Starting the explorer with admistrative privileges requires administrative privileges with UAC. Everytime you start a program that requires admistrative privileges it will ask for the Username and Password of an administrator. You can try to put in the Windows XP article. 2001:5C0:1501:0:597D:25E3:BF57:E36F (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

If you would start such an article, you would also have to write one about bugs in Linux and MacOS to remain unbiased. Bugs happen. Microsoft is working to fix every issue as soon as possible by releasing constant updates, sometimes even before the public learns about it. So I just don't see what would be so noteworthy about Windows bugs. 2001:5C0:1101:9D00:1D16:75B7:F44D:67 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Those so called bugs are security features allowing to access the content foe war on terror & etc $ purposes. There is special division in Israel to plant thos features in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Latest stable and unstable releases

Right now we're listing Windows 8 RTM as the "latest unstable release" in the infobox. This is a problem because "unstable" doesn't mean the build hasn't been widely released; it means the build isn't considered finished. Windows 8 RTM has been deemed stable. It's the same build that's going to be released to retail, and in fact the Enterprise edition has already been released to SA customers, the only market it will ever be released to. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely should be changed. Windows 8 has indeed been stable since August 1 and to list the same build number both stable and unstable is just ridiculous and shows how uneducated the editors are. That no one bothers to change it also shows how messed up this wikiality is. 2001:5C0:1101:9D00:1D16:75B7:F44D:67 (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How you define educated ? [in context of repeating advertising campaign thesis]. "Windows and educated" ??? Beside, word "Stable" may be not good for sales perhaps — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 18:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

XP

The article says that XP was widely praised. I went to the ref, and could not find any support for this statement. One of the links was not about XP, another was dead, and the first one was faint praise. (Conflict-of-interest disclaimer: When I first used XP, at the end of a long session it claimed my diskette had no format, causing me to panic, thinking I had lost a valuable file, online help was no help; only taking the diskette to a computer with Windows 98 revealed that nothing had been wiped from the diskette. This was just the first of my difficulties with this lousy system.) Kdammers (talk) 04:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Was it 5 1/4 floppy ?

Windows 8 Is a Desktop Disaster

Article in pcmag.com. The wiki article do not contain any warnings. Warum it is blocked. Add it and ref. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge versions and history sections

It's recently occurred to me how redundant this article is, having both a versions section and a history section. Each section goes through Windows version history all the way from 1.0 to 8. Some information is repeated, and some new information is given, but it makes no sense to have to read through both. I'd like to propose we finally eliminate the redundancy and merge the two sections together. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Josh

There is no doubt it is a good idea but you made a mistake asking it here. You'll just gather a lot of oppose votes. It is always easier to get approval for a good work done than an imaginary good work not yet done.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone ahead and performed the merge. One thing that still needs to be taken care of is the 64-bit section. Giving the 64-bit versions their own subsection makes less and less sense as each version is released with its own 64-bit editions. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:24, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

"In February 2013, is was reported an update to Windows 8," Word error. It should be "In February 2013, it was..." Davenport80 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thank you!  — daranz [ t ] 21:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Multilingual support: IMEs and LIPs

The proposed wording (for discussion here) of the new section "Multilingual support: IMEs and LIPs" (for Windows) is shown here. LittleBen (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Collapsing long talk-page discussion

The meaning has changed quite a bit, some parts are improved but most are not, the main points are: The IMEs far predated the LIPs, that's why I wrote this section with the IMEs first. (At least for CJK—if not for other languages as well—it first became possible to switch the Windows OS language in the Enterprise version of Vista, which was not available to the general public). Starting with Windows 7, the CJK and other LIPs were offered as optional downloads for Ultimate and above. The original LIPs section stated: Microsoft now also offers Language Interface Packs (LIPs) that allow users to view Windows menus, dialog boxes, and other user interface items in their preferred language. These are free; most are for English Windows (XP and later)—however, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean LIP downloads require Windows 7 Ultimate or Enterprise. Note: Most of these require English Windows as the base. Note that MS Office LIPs are a completely different issue—that's why I put this right at the end and in brackets, since the article is primarily about the OS. The original IME section stated: After releasing Office 2010 and IME 2010 Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions, Microsoft made IME 2010 available as a free upgrade for users of earlier IME versions. Microsoft later made these Chinese, Japanese, and Korean IME versions available free to users of Windows XP and later, including English Windows XP (but now says that users should own some version of MS Office). The current IME section states: Until Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, every release of Microsoft Office came with an input method editor (IME) for Windows that assisted Chinese, Japanese and Korean users to write in their own language. Note: This is quite untrue. The IME was an operating system feature (for some language versions only), and IME upgrades came bundled with new versions of Office (for those language versions). Microsoft later made the CJK IME upgrades available free to users of Windows XP and later, including English Windows XP. Surely it's not true that "every release of Microsoft Office came with an input method editor (IME) for Windows that assisted Chinese, Japanese and Korean users to write in their own language". The IMEs were an optional download (if you had English Office then you could download any or all; if you had Chinese then you could download Japanese and/or Korean, and so on)—but English or CJK was the req'd base OS. IME 2010 was released with Office 2010, but was provided as a free download for XP and later a little after Office 2010 was released. Everything from the original IME for XP and Office XP thru' IME 2003, IME 2007, IME 2010 works with XP, but IME 2013 in Windows 8 is not compatible with XP thru. WIn. 7—to use Office 2013 with XP thru' Win. 7, IME 2010 should be used. IME 2010 was not offered as a free download only after Office 2013 was released. Note: The difference between the free and for-sale language packs for Office (see References below) is probably language-specific spelling and proofing tools—also, the CJK packs are not free. Note: The simplest way to explain the above might be a table—but a table would be physically huge, and a huge amount of work to create. I think that the easiest way to fix all the problems would be to simply revert this. I did spot what appeared to be a mis-labeled reference (LIPS for the OS may have been mis-labeled LIPS for MS Office) that may have confused you. Also I have linked from several IME articles to this section, and changing the section title has probably created a lot of red links (there was also a typo in the current section title, but somebody has just fixed it). I like the idea of using the original word "multilingual", because the IMEs, OS LIPs, and Office language packs (when combined) make it possible to create a multilingual system. Also I used "enabled" rather than "assisted" for what the IMEs do: at least for the CJK IMEs, you can't enter characters without them, they're not an optional extra just to "assist" you. As I mentioned, some of the links were wrong, my original should have read: Windows LIPs. (For MS Office, some LIPs are free, and some "Language Packs" are sold separately.) References Some flavors of LINUX have been multilingual for years—OpenSuSE in particular will work in virtually any language, even for the stripped-down LiveCD version: you select interface language and keyboard language before booting up, and most application interfaces are also automatically switched at boot time to the selected language. LittleBen (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. Some parts of your message is badly confusing. Sometimes I don't know what you are talking about and what's the problem. But there is an issue with your original post: It is too Microsoft Office-centric and too CJK-centric. This article is titled Windows, not Office. And there is another 200 languages besides the Japanese, Chinese and Korean trio. So, I moved the LIP section to the top and suppressed parts of the story that were not Windows related. In addition, I used other examples for LIP besides the trio. So far I don't even know what is wrong. I spot one problem though: It seems I was wrong to write Office included IME. I should have written Office included the latest Microsoft IME. But in this case, the whole section on IME should be moved to Microsoft Office article as the remote connection that it had with Windows now seem unraveled. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC) As I explained, the only part about Office was the one sentence in brackets at the end. The reason for being CJK centric is that I'm thinking of English Wikipedia readership: the number of readers of English Wikipedia who are in the US or UK and want to (1) use an IME to write in their own language on English Windows, (2) display Office menus in their own language on English Windows, and (3) display Windows menus and messages in their own language (switch English Windows to another language version of Windows) is far far greater for CJK than for Indian, African, or Middle East languages/dialects, for example. I guess that the section has to start by mentioning these three issues in explaining why there is a demand for multilingual Windows. German or French users, for example, might get by with (2) alone (they optionally may swap the keyboard for a more familiar and properly-marked one when they use the computer). For languages that require an IME, (1) is required. For Windows, you will get (3) only by buying Win. 7 Ultimate or above (or using hacks which give some of the same functionality on other versions of Windows 7). IMEs come with some versions of Windows—like CJK and a few other-language versions. However, even if you use English Windows and English Office (with no IME), you can download the latest versions of other-language IMEs. [New C, J, or K (and a few other) IMEs come with each new version of Office (except 2013)]. I realize that I am so close to and familiar with the subject that it might help to have somebody standing further away to explain it more simply and in smaller chunks. Maybe the above (1) (2) (3) explanation of the issues is a good start. Best regards. LittleBen (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Hello. If you were thinking of the readership as you explained, you made a terrible mistake. English Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a worldwide neutral view and you did the opposite. Any form of bias in Wikipedia is unwelcome. (And I am in position to know that your demographic assumptions are extremely wrong. The number of Italian-speaking people who live in U.S. far outmatches the number of Japanese-speaking people worldwide. I am tempted to pour my sources here and lecture you but wandering of the discussion is a dangerous thing. Just remember: Assumption is very dangerous.) Maybe, maybe not; we need source. But Microsoft IME is a component of Microsoft Office. It does not belong to this article No comments on this one Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC) <Quote>The number of Italian-speaking people who live in U.S. far outmatches the number of Japanese-speaking people worldwide.<Unquote> But your version does not mention multilingual Windows for Italians, it mentions "Arabic LIP" and "Catalan LIP". How does the number of Arabic and Catalan people combined compare with the number of Chinese, Japanese and Korean people in the US and the UK? And are most of the Italian-speaking people in the US unable to use English Windows? Mastery of English seems to be more of a problem for the CJK population. LittleBen (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. You mentioned Italians first, that's why. Oops! My mistake. Your example was Indians, not Italians. But what's your point anyway? Bias of any kind is still not allowed. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. Feel free to review the following revised version, and add questions or comments below it. LittleBen (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Hi. Honestly, it takes more than pass of a few hours for me to change mind. I was thinking a good argument may have a much better chance. ;) So, I called an RFC. Maybe it helps. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC) RfCs are supposed to be brief proposals, not complete copies of long talk page discussions. The actual proposal is here: LittleBen (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC) IME is packaged with Windows. It's not a component of Microsoft Office, even if Office does include its own version of it. Cckerberos (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2013 (UTC) Original version—with corrected references—as basis for discussion (I have added an intro at the top)

Multilingual support: IMEs and LIPs

There are three main issues involved in making English-language Windows multilingual: (1) some languages require an Input Method Editor (IME) to enter text, (2) many users will want application menus (such as MS Office menus) to display in their own language, and they may also want to use a keyboard that matches the normal keyboard layout and marking for their own language, and (3) some users will want Windows menus and messages to display in their own language, i.e. they will want to switch from an English Windows environment to another language.

For languages like Italian, Spanish, French and German, (2) alone may suffice. For languages like Chinese, Japanese, and Korean (CJK), an IME (1) is also required. This is bundled with the corresponding language version of Windows, but is also available as a separate download for English Windows, as described below; (1) and (2) can be essentially free (apart from the custom keyboard). For some languages, (3), multilingual support for Windows, is a free download for Windows XP and later—but it requires Windows 7 Ultimate or better for languages such as Chinese, Japanese and Korean.

(1) After releasing Chinese, Japanese, and Korean versions of Office 2010 and IME 2010, Microsoft made IME 2010 available as a free upgrade for users of the earlier IME versions of Windows. Microsoft later made these Chinese, Japanese, and Korean IME versions available free to users of Windows XP and later, including English Windows XP (but now says that users should own some version of MS Office). Each IME package enables the entering of text in the corresponding language, and necessary fonts are bundled with it.

(2) Microsoft now also offers Language Interface Packs (LIPs) for MS Office. Some LIPs are free; some "Language Packs" (such as the CJK ones) are sold separately and may include spelling and grammar checking tools. (Recent application software from some companies may support two or more popular languages).

(3) Microsoft now also offers Language Interface Packs (LIPs) that allow users to view Windows menus, dialog boxes, and other user interface items in their preferred language. These are free; most are for English Windows (XP and later)—however, Chinese, Japanese, and Korean LIP downloads require Windows 7 Ultimate or Enterprise. These LIPs include IMEs where applicable.

References

Input method editors and language interface packs (propose to replace this 17 Feb. version with the above enhanced original version)

Input method editors and language interface packs (proposed to be replaced by the above enhanced original version) Microsoft offers language interface packs (LIP) for users of Windows XP and later; these packages change the user interface of Windows (e.g. menus and dialog boxes) to another language. Each LIP has its own requirements, in terms the edition and the base language of Windows on which it works. For instance Arabic LIP of Windows 7 only works on Enterprise or Ultimate editions of Windows 7, while Catalan LIP, which has no edition restriction, only works on a copy of Windows 7 with French or Spanish base language. Until Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, every release of Microsoft Office came with an input method editor (IME) for Windows that assisted Chinese, Japanese and Korean users to write in their own language. Each IME package facilitates entering text in the corresponding language, and necessary fonts are bundled with it. Windows Server 2012 (and later, Windows 8) broke this tradition and came with built-in IMEs. As result, Microsoft Office 2013 was released without an IME. To assist the users who installed Microsoft Office 2013 on Windows 7 or earlier, Microsoft released IME 2010 as a separate download. Although everyone can download this package, its license agreement only allows those own a copy of Microsoft Office to use it. References

Discussion

• Hello, guys. Who refactored the discussion? Seriously, mistake plus more mistake plus even more mistake is the only thing I see here. I decline this proposition in whole for the reasons I said earlier. Apart from that, I am unable to discuss in this hostile environment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• If you don't identify what you think is wrong then we don't know what needs explaining/fixing. An RfC is supposed to be an easy-to-understand proposal. Other people are free to compare the above original-version-plus-intro. with your changed version, copied above, and make comments and suggestions here. Surely that's not hostile.
• It's a separate issue, but I've already apologized for misreading the MSS EULA. As a goodwill gesture, I'd like to offer you a copy of a New Year card that may well have been written by the same lawyer who wrote the MSS EULA. Best regards. LittleBen (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Dear Ben, there is not need to go dramatic and bury me under signs of good will. You have proven to be acting in good faith and nobody said anything to the contrary. So, please focus on the main discussion. In fact, I am getting out of your way. Do whatever you see fit. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, don't be discouraged—you have made quite a big contribution to various computing-related articles, and I hope that you continue. I've been in this little multilingual computing niche for maybe 20 years, and I didn't introduce the issues adequately in my first draft. LittleBen (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• I've updated the main body of the article with the proposed version, and commented out the previous 17 Feb. version that is shown collapsed above (it's still there in the article, just not visible). LittleBen (talk) 13:23, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Note about history of "revolutionary" desktop

A few people, like me, are especially aware that Microsoft's "revolutionary" desktop added application software features to the Windows 3.11 GUI windows concept to create the "revolutionary" popular desktop. After Windows 3.1(1), Microsoft operating system included a hidden application software. I developed application software using Keyfile document management software, Keyfile was an application software ( running within Windows 3,1(1)), which included an object oriented drag and drop graphical user interface (GUI), a trash icon, a fax icon, a printer icon, a scanner icon, and folder system which where part of it's document management look and feel ( yes, even thumbnail preview images was suggested by my manager to Microsoft! My manager, was a college buddy of Microsoft's chief political leader) Wikipedia is a historical reference for many people. I simply feel it is misleading. 67.4.152.100 (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Please cite a reliable source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi!

google keyfile document management,

very few people know about this hidden application but you could try (maybe)

http://www.facebook.com/markley.johnson can tell you about my manager and Keyfile

we where moved to a different company prior to the release of Windows 95,

goggle david mitchel and associates st. paul minnesota,

https://www.facebook.com/geoffrey.courtright was chiefly responsible for the aquisition of david mitchel and associates

the former president of david mitchel and associates, david mitchel, is now CEO ( AFAIK ) of the nearly extinct Keyfile Corporation

google david mitchell keyfile

67.4.152.100 (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Please take your time to study Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Keyflow features an object oriented desktop metaphor, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Keyfile+Shows+First+Live+Wide+Area+Workflow+--+Connecting+Four+Sites...-a018135520 67.4.152.100 (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2013

Hi. I made this version of windows timeline File:Windows Updated Family Tree Simplified.png if you like it, please use it in the article. thanks.--(talk) 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Camoka12 (talk) 23:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 Declined There's already a timeline present. --GSK ● ✉ ✓ 01:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Endorse decline: Simplified is a euphemism here. This timeline is incomplete. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Present tense or past tense for EOL (End-Of-Life) software?

Should we use the present tense ("Windows 3.1 is an operating system") or the past tense when referring to obsolete (EOL) OS and MS Office software? Previous discussion is at User talk:Codename Lisa#Microsoft Windows. Please continue discussion here. LittleBen (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello guys. I feel this issue is being discussed ad nauseam in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Question about usage of present and past tense

• In English, State verbs are always in simple present. Apart from that, English Grammar In Use says "We use the simple present to talk about things in general. We are not thinking only about now. We use it to say that something happens all the time or repeatedly, or that something is true in general. It is not important whether the action is happening at the time of speaking." With that in mind, "is" in Windows X is an operating system" is a state verb. "Windows X was an operating system" implies "it no longer is an operating system" and raises the question "why?" The answer cannot be "because it is discontinued" because discontinuation does not turn an operating system into a video game, dish washer or anything else. The correct form is "Windows X is a discontinued operating system".
• That said, the above proposal (EOL-based verb tense change) turns Wikipedia from a WP:NPOV-governed encyclopedia to a Microsoft-governed one, in which we change our verb tenses whenever Microsoft decided that supporting one of its products is no longer financially beneficial.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's surely WP:NPOV to use the past tense for a person after they die; I'm suggesting that it is also WP:NPOV to use the past tense for software (and hardware) that is well past its EOL and EOS. If you can no longer buy software, and no longer realistically install it (just about impossible to get compatible hardware—and there's no point in trying to do so, because of the security problems in such unsupported software)—then surely it's past tense. There needn't be any hard and fast rules, but MS software is—for all intents and purposes—well and truly dead five years after its EOL and EOS. LittleBen (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Windows is not a person; the analogy doesn't hold. I agree with Codename Lisa that is a discontinued works best here. Other contexts may require flexibility of usage. (Our article on the historical present needs vast improvement, if others come here because they're interested in the overall question.) As I said at the other discussion, as a matter of ontology a software or an operating system seems to me to exist like a work of fiction/art, and not like an object that can cease to exist, nor even an event, like a war, that occurs and is completed at a point in time. Like fiction or works of art, an operating system is a "knowledge product". You would say "Windows X was introduced" at a particular point, or was developed/marketed/etc, but it still is what it is. My analogy was "Macbeth was first performed" at a point in time, but "Macbeth is a tragedy", even if nobody ever stages it again. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• As I said on Codename Lisa's talk page, my personal position is "be kind to dumb users": a WP user, who has never heard of something before, wants to know if it is still current—or is it something that would probably never be encountered in the current-day real world, and so is only of historic interest. Thus the distinction between "is" and "was" is useful and helpful. But I agree that using "discontinued" would provide the same information as to whether it's relevant and useful nowadays, or not. (Software or Operating system), discontinued in <year>, ..." would be even better. LittleBen (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Windows 9

Many sites reveal that Windows 9 will come out in the fall of 2014. Any discussion on whether this should be mentioned yet?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No. We've barely got Windows 8.1 out of the way, and anything related to Windows 9 is more than likely just rumours. pcuser42 (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You mean, one possible story is that Windows 9 won't come out until 2024?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Possible, but all I'm saying is wait for a reliable source, and for Windows 9 to be notable, before adding information. Right now I can't find any information that says it even exists. pcuser42 (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do a Google News search on Windows 9 and look at the first 50 results. (Ignore the one posted on April 1, 2013; it's just an April fool.) Georgia guy (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Request to change the latest unstable release.

Hello, the writer of this article. This article shows that the latest unstable release of Windows is NT 6.3 Build 9365. Please correct it. It is NT 6.3 Bulid 9418. Thank You.

Regards, Rahul Navi Manthiran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.206.85.244 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There actually haven't been any unstable releases since Windows 8. What we've seen of Windows 8.1 is from internal builds, not releases. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait for the Windows 8.1 Preview on 26 June before changing this. pcuser42 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Windows is spyware

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm

Time to pull NSAKEY, etc. into the main article, now that it's confirmed that Microsoft is working for the NSA? Hcobb (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I guess a new subsection should be added under Security, explaining recent discoveries, and with a link to NSAKEY. --Lonaowna (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Tried adding it, but it got censored out. (How many NSA guys waste their time reverting stuff here?) Hcobb (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

First of all, I have absolutely zero association with the NSA (I don't even live in America). Second, I removed it as it is scaremongering and Microsoft, and other parties, all put out statements saying they don't give out data en masse to the government. [3] pcuser42 (talk) 21:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My exact addition was:

"Microsoft provides special access to multiple agencies of the United States government to enable their exploitation of vulnerabilities in Windows software."

And the source says:

http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-company-ever-trust-microsoft-again/index.htm

And yet we now learn that one of the first things that Microsoft does is to send information about those vulnerabilities to "multiple agencies" - presumably that includes the NSA and CIA. Moreover, we also know that "this type of early alert allowed the U.S. to exploit vulnerabilities in software sold to foreign governments".

In exactly what way was I misrepresenting that source? Hcobb (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll tell you in what way, Henry - you're basically using a quote made by an author of a blog, who made this assumption based on another source, Bloomberg's article. And even original Bloomberg resource basically says that this info was provided to them by mysterious "officials, who asked not to be identified". Soo... Yea, your edit (as well as the name for this conversation topic on this Talk Page) was not really cool, dude, and did look like "OMG, M$ is evil! How could they???!!!111oneoneoneeleven" scaremongering... I hate M$ too, <redacted>, but this doesn't really belong on Wikipedia's articles ;-)

Tell you what, how about finding an official and more direct sources and rewording it all in a more neutral way? Without all the speculations from "unnamed sources" about what the "Big Brother" actually does with that info? Give it a try! 173.68.110.16 (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your logic, but WP:BLP does apply on talk pages too.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

So bloomberg.com is not a reliable source? Very well, I'll go dip into RS-stan and see if everybody wants to wipe that magazine from our source list. Hcobb (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I've said. Once again, you originally used a subjective opinion made by an author of a blog-like resource, instead of linking directly to original source at Bloomberg. In an addition you cherry-picked a quote attributed to anonymous source (which might have been some person who is simply unsympathetic towards MS and, therefore, tries to spread FUD about it wherever possible) in the Bloomberg's article itself. With no official confirmation by either NSA or MS. There's no need for such highly questionable assumptions in main article itself - take a look at September 11 attacks, it does not include any paranoid shit by "Teh Truth!!!1111" fanatics even if quoted from reliable and well-established news publications.

TL;DR version for you: Using a more direct source of info = good. Unless the info is a mere speculation. Which is = bad, regardless of the source which published it. Get it? 173.68.110.16 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Please follow WP:Civility - "Welcome other people to edit the articles but politely discourage non-constructive edits"61.3.184.173 (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)Huwa

Hi guys. Conspiracy theory never ceases to be fashionable. So, oppose inclusion for now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

gta iv

119.154.201.97 (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. --Stfg (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2014

Windows 9 (aka- Threshold full version due out April 2015)

         test version builds beginning after Microsoft build conference April 2014

68.100.92.61 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Speculations again!

Hello guys.

This happens every time: Some guy or gal writes in his or her personal blog that the codename for the next version of Windows is such and such and you guys just add it to article as if WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL don't worth a squat?

Please, people, past experience is nice too: We've had correct codename rumors in the past, correct codenames rumored for wrong products, wrong codenames and codenames that never saw the daylight. Examples are respectively "Longhorn", "Blue" (originally rumored to be that of Windows 9), "Next" (which was pure nonsense) and "Blackcomb". WP:RS and WP:CRYSTAL have already passed their exam of worthiness. Please, respect them. At least, wait for Microsoft BUILD conference.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

Add under Wine (within the subsection):

• • Linux Unified Kernel – A set of patches to the Linux kernel allowing first-class *.exe file support in Linux (using Wine DLLs), use Windows drivers, and be faster than interpreted Wine.

Snadrus (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done with minor revision. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments: c: link prefix for Wikimedia Commons

There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 March 2014

There is a new update out for 8.1 I have some screenshots I can share too. I do not know how to add the screenshots from my PC yet though.

Gabe290 (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Note that all screenshots or other images uploaded to Wikipedia must comply with the image use policy, which has very strict guidelines on copyright and licensing of images. --ElHef (Meep?) 17:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these two things can be added but here you go. The first one is that windows 2000 features the windows XP logo.

File:New Bitmap Image(2).png

The Windows xp logo is Highlighted on a windows 2000 virtual machine

And another one is that at least one folder on Windows XP uses the folder style introduced in windows Vista

File:New Bitmap Image.png

They are all Highlighted

P.S. Images will be comming. Can't upload yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakob9999 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

23.118.85.207 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Bobo

Entries for Windows 7 and Windows 8+

At the moment the version history under Windows NT is broken up in a way that I would say is counter-intuitive to the version history of Windows. Windows 7 and 8 do not have their own entries and are instead grouped under 'Vista and Later'.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 are similar and even share the same version number, as does Windows 8; 6.0, 6.1, and 6.2 respectively. But the operating systems differ so much that they really should have their own categories, especally Windows 8+, due to the near complete overhaul of the operating system. Windows 8 was such a change to the product line that the build number for the OS jumped from 7601 in Windows 7 SP1 to 9200 in Windows 8.0 and then to 9600 in Windows 8.1. Arguing that a lot of change and revision happened over the three years between the operating systems.

I'm just saying I am happy to add the entries if people are okay with it, but I wanted to run it by everyone else instead of just changing things.

Astrel (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi.

What you are referring to as "category" is actually called a section heading. Its purpose is only and only to help the flow of the article. While Windows 8 is indeed controversial and perhaps different, the description of these differences hasn't required three paragraphs of text. Therefore, as long as we don't have three paragraphs of text or more about Windows 8 and later, it does not get its own heading.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Xbox OS

As it is windows/windows based and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in this article ever I propose its inclusion. Comments? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Genealogy?

I see Codename Lisa has inserted a Genealogy section into the article. Maybe it is just me but I find this section a patently bad idea that defies our encyclopedic values mainly because of abysmal information presentation style. It is analogous to a piece of Japanese text in the middle of an English article.

Does everyone agree that it must be removed outright or is there anything valuable in it?

Fleet Command (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the "By codebase" section, it being unsourced with "codebase" being ill-defined.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

@FleetCommand and Jasper Deng: Hello guys. So, is that it? "Patently bad idea that defies our encyclopedic values" culminated in the removal of "By codebase" section and now all that remains is good and proper? Or did each of you expressed an individual concern?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I had no comment on what FleetCommand said beyond the above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2015

The latest unstable release number for this product is 10.0.9926 as of Friday 23rd January 2015. See . Wagnerp16 (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2015

Latest unstable kernel release is 10.0.9935 http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insider_update/is-9935-the-new-build-13015-update-build-is-still/476a0fec-07df-45aa-b3bb-da776b6465f6 Wagnerp16 (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 20:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wagnerp16: Hi. I reviewed Technical 13's verdict and I believe I know what change you want. However, according to Wikipedia policy WP:SPS, your source is not acceptable. Sorry. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Hi, thanks for the message. I do know about the source, as a Windows Technical Preview Insider, we do receive new builds very quickly. Sometimes it is not possible to find reliable sources because of this. Best Wishes, Wagnerp16 ((Wagnerp16)) 05:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But rest assured; if it doesn't have a lot of reliable sources, it probably doesn't have due weight. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2015

The article currently says calls Windows a "metafamily". What's that suppose to mean? "family" is inherently a "meta" word in the first place. And I can't find it in any dictionary. It should be changed to just "family".

72.161.14.98 (talk) 01:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Well, you didn't look carefully then. If you look up "Meta-" in Random House Unabridged Dictionary, you'll get:

3. a prefix added to the name of something that consciously references or comments upon its own subject or features

For example, a metalist would be a list of lists. A metaclass is a class of classes. Metadata is data about data. Metalanguage is a language about languages. Here, "metafamily" means a family of families. (Human families do not have sub-families but metaphorical families, like operating systems, do.)

Using the prefix "super-" is also another way, but I understand that someone protested it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I propose we merge Criticism of Microsoft Windows with Microsoft Windows to provide a better NPOV of the content. Bryce Carmony (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article is about all Windows; you name it. Criticism of Microsoft Windows is not. Your ideal merger target would be Windows NT. Every section in that article except § "Integration of Internet Explorer into Windows" can be merged; the latter however is already covered in the relevant Windows articles and can be disregarded. I already think it is extremely biased on Wikipedia to give value to removal of IE in world that every single Microsoft competiting OS (OS X, iOS, Ubuntu, Android, etc.) comes with a web browser integrated right in. Fleet Command (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Many of the sections do not adequately discuss their subject from a NPOV to warrant inclusion in this article. The points themselves could warrant inclusion as much more concise statement, but in their current form they would be UNDUE here. Galestar (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

"Please change the latest preview from 10.0.10049 to 10.0.10061 because Microsoft has just released the 10.0.10061 preview. I have read the Windows Blog for prove that there is a new preview. The link is http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/04/22/windows-10-technical-preview-build-10061-now-available/" Susantocalvin (talk) 08:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

There is a new build of Windows 10 Technical Preview, build 10061. You should update this page ASAP. Scatboot198 (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Already done See above request. Stickee (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

Build 10074 for Windows 10 Insider preview (formerly known as Windows 10 Technical Preview) is live two days ago, please update this page ASAP. More info at http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/04/29/new-windows-10-insider-preview-build-10074-now-available/ Scatboot198 (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

I read alot about Android on this information-page about Windows. I don't know what Android sales have to do with Microsoft anything and there is a feel of general Microsoft negativity in every part that has information about Android. I guess all edits that mention Android were done by the same person who might have a biased feel towards Android vs. Microsoft? 81.233.235.113 (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2015

Please insert this image to replace the Windows 8.1 screenshot: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_10_build_10074_desktop.png Yagyaxt1068 (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done - because your image will be deleted as a copyright violation - Arjayay (talk) 11:04, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2015

Build 10122 of Windows 10 Insider Preview is now live. Please update this page ASAP. More info at http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/05/20/announcing-windows-10-insider-preview-build-10122-for-pcs/ Scatboot198 (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2015

27.1.208.170 (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2015

113.231.196.78 (talk) 18:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: No request

Cannolis (talk) 19:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

Update Windows Family Tree to this photo. This photo is updated to include Windows 10, NT 10.0. Bugfroggy (talk) 01:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used.
Please note that the picture must not be copyright, which excludes almost all images that you find on the internet, in magazines etc., and you will need proof that it is not copyright, just saying it is not copyright is not acceptable. - Arjayay (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please update Windows timeline: Bar chart

Please update Windows timeline: Bar chart — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.36.231.77 (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015 of Windows 10 page

Now that Windows 10 has come out and a total of 14 million pc's have it this page need to be updated to include the new information.

References

Justking10 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2015

Change Windows NT to Windows NT (also known as Windows New Technology) Or similar 5.198.117.21 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the Windows NT article, "NT" was formerly expanded to "New Technology" but no longer carries any specific meaning. Stickee (talk) 22:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2015

Nobustas (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Stickee (talk) 09:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015

193.93.26.198 (talk) 14:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Microsoft Windows. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100213120324/http://www.microsoft.com:80/whdc/archive/fast-boot.mspx to http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/fast-boot.mspx

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

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

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Flying Windows" inexplicably placed in "Version History"

It has been misplaced IMO and given the same significance as Win3.1/9x/NT - it is just a screensaver, and regardless of the history of this debate is entirely irrelevant within this article and is an insignificant component in the Windows OS. It has no more significance that Marquee, Mystify, or Starfield for example, except for having Windows in its name! Perhaps it belongs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screensaver#Microsoft_Windows. Cpns (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Concur. Except I think the article it came from should have simply been deleted. Accordingly I am not moving it to the Screensavers article. It's just gone. Jeh (talk) 00:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Usage Share

Please, do not insert irrelevant information about another OS (Android) usage share, this article is relevant only to Windows. If you want publish information related to OS generally, please use appropriate article like Usage_share_of_operating_systems Smartmo (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

General usage comparison across different markets is not fully relevant, because OS usage on different markets is not comparable (e.g. Windows is running mainly PC devices, and also servers, tablets and smartphones, but not on TVs or network devices as routers, Android is mainly running on smartphones and tablets, and also TVs and wearables, but not on servers, Linux is mainly running on servers, and maybe all network devices like routers, on some PCs, TVs, and so on), and is not possible compare sales across markets, because value is very different (is not possible compare number of servers, with number of phones). For relevant comparison are defined Markets, and all leading analytics identifying Server, Personal Computer, and Mobile as three different markets.Smartmo (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2015

In second introductory paragraph ".... But comparison across different markets is not fully relevant, and for personal computer is Windows still number one platform...." Is syntactically incorrect; Should be rather "... But comparisons across different markets are not fully relevant; and for personal computers, Windows is still the most popular operating system..." Jllouis24 (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Done -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 11:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)