Jump to content

Talk:Windows 8/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Deletion tagging

I've removed the deletion tag which someone earlier reinstated, as there has been no argument for deletion made on this talk page.

I note that there had been an earlier deletion of a Windows 8 article; that was when Windows 7 was the forthcoming edition. This article would now be the logical place for news about forthcoming editions. So, I'd say earlier reasons for deletion can't be assume to hold. Andy Farrell (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Could just be me

But I find the first couple of paragraphs right up to "Milestone leaks" to be awfully brief and above all horrible to read. Perhaps a rewrite just to get rid of all the repetition. --144.132.0.128 (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think you have read that policy. I'm not sure it this article is useful, it is based only in rumors. We should merge it in History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fitoschido (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The article mostly contains information about currently existing builds that have leaked. I see no crystal ball gazing. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The problem is, features in leaked versions might not make it into the final. It talks about these features like they are going to be in the final OS and we have no way of knowing that. Microsoft has never uttered the words Windows 8, and all they have officially announced is that it will support System on a Chip interfaces. I think this article should be deleted, or reduced to only verifiable information. Speculation has no place on Wikipedia. Captain Stack (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly Captain, and in addition, many references are not reliable sources... Are just "rumors" sites. —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 00:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Captain Stack. —Mike Allen 01:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
So we all agreed that this page is way too speculative. How can we get this page remove or do something about it? It seems to be getting out of hand. I'm seeing more and more unverifiable content being added. Captain Stack (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Either go with the original consensus of the last AFD (redirect) or take it back to AFD. —Mike Allen 00:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I advise being bold and merging it. If we encounter opposition, we do it as WP:BRD says: The opposition reverts it back, then we discuss in AfD. Fleet Command (talk) 04:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Agree. However there won't be much to merge, since half of it is rumors and speculation. :-P —Mike Allen 04:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Then merge that nothing. Fleet Command (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It seems the solution is to remove any unverifiable information, reword the information about leaked builds to not imply finality, and if that leaves us with an article that's too short, then discuss merging. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, I decided to “merge” the article into History of Microsoft Windows#Windows 8. (Really I simply deleted the contents of this article and converted it into a redirect, it was nothing that worth keeping). —Fitoschido // Leave me a shout! 16:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
My hero! It was about time. Fleet Command (talk) 09:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It's back, though... your deletion didn't last very long and I hope it won't come back. --Krawunsel (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It was never deleted, it was simply redirected to the History page where all verified information available was located. —Mike Allen 10:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's back, nevertheless! And I hope it will remain that way! --Krawunsel (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. The "deletion"/redirect of the article was completely uncalled for. — Alex Khristov 12:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Windows 8 Logo.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Windows 8 Logo.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Ok i ramoved the image from the page and now consider me uploading a different one.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Build 7989 leaked!

clicky Unfortunately I can't edit the article right now, as it's locked. -andy 77.190.41.50 (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Notification system!

http://www.winbeta.org/?q=news/windows-8-build-8030-and-more — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.53.234 (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit made. Thank you! Island Monkey talk the talk 18:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

UI not being replaced

I did notice in this wiki entry that it says the user UI is being replaced by this stupid touch interface.. this is NOT correct

bogus!

then start menu and all that still exist in windows 8 my sources are telling me that windows 8 will have the ability to change between 4 different UI's 1) Classic or Windows 7 or EXPLORER mode. 2) Touch UI 3) Media Center UI 4) Xbox UI

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.18.192.125 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft's Julie Larson-Green stated at D9 "This is the replacement for the Start menu." It's sitll unclear what that means, whether the Start menu is still not an option or not, but it's safe to use the same wording Microsoft does. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
The Start Menu has been completely removed in the Windows 8 Beta (Consumer Preview) released in early 2012 - it was just disabled in the earlier Developer Preview and could be re-enabled with a registry tweak - so anyone wishing to use the new OS on a laptop or desktop without a touch screen is out of luck. I tried it and it makes the new OS almost unusable, so if you don't have a touch screen then it looks like you're stuck with Windows 7. There is a third-party program that sort-of provides a menu more like the old Start one, but it's a bit clunky, and not comparable to the old easy-to-use Start Menu.
I suspect that this issue may ultimately cause Microsoft the same sort of PR problems that it experienced with Vista.

File:Windows 8 Leaked Beta Screenshot.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Windows 8 Leaked Beta Screenshot.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic

  • I removed it already. it was not mine, but i have an ISO to rpoof it has the same equal interface as it was uploaded. Sorry for doing that bad at Wikipedia - i am only doing it for good.

talk) 04:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is a speculative mess

This article contains a lot of content regarding leaks and speculation. This is content that really isn't encyclopedic and I think it should be removed. I know the article will be really short after doing this but at least it will be solid information. What does everyone else think? Captain Stack (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

  • We should reflect what people write about, and unfortunately that is speculation. So we don't want OR speculation by editors here, but reporting significant speculation is OK, until we know the reality. If you thiunk it is a merss try to tidy it! The authoritative stuff comes from primary sources. But we should include that too as the computer journalists pick it up anyway. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What not to add

I've seen it being added, and if no one tries to defend this and this, I'm reverting.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The YouTube video is a reposting of an official Microsoft video. Also the info sourced to it needs to be cleaned up. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A new official screenshot of Windows 8

There is a new official screenshot here:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/09/13/experiencing-windows-8-touch-on-windows-7-hardware.aspx

Should we change the screenshot or is the old screenshot good enough? Fleet Command (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Windows 8 dev.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Windows 8 dev.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft employees: secret facts about Windows 8 leaked

Microsoft employees about upcoming version — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamalmix (talk • contribs) 10:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Blogs in general are not considered to be reliable sources. This one in particular seems to be a blog about holiday/wedding games that for some reason made a entry about Windows 8. Reliable sources are welcome, but this one is not a reliable source. - SudoGhost 10:34, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Screenshot

I believe the Developer Preview is the best representation, but the existing screenshot is not since it doesn't use the Metro UI.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily disagree, I think the current image would be best for the first image, and that the developer preview image would be better for further down in the article. However, the image was tagged by another editor for speedy deletion as a copyvio, so it may be a moot point. - SudoGhost 03:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I think we should always use the latest build (until RTM time) in screenshots, and I can provide a screenshot if you'd like (though I'm not good with files).Jasper Deng (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally I think that the current image is a good overview of what makes Windows 8 different than the other versions, and the image that replaced it has too much going on, and seems like it could be mistaken for Windows 7, as I'm not seeing any huge differences between Windows 7 and that image (except for minor graphics tweaks). The current image seems like a more iconic image of what Windows 8 is, and couldn't be mistaken for anything else. However, I wouldn't see anything wrong with having an image like the developer preview image placed elsewhere in the article. This is, of course, only my opinion, but I wanted to explain my reasoning so that there was no confusion. Thank you. - SudoGhost 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the current image is not representative. But a new screenshot of the Developer Preview (with Metro) is what I'd like to see.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Changed the image

I have changed the image because the build is newer than the one they have shown at D9.--92.5.198.12 (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I had to undo the change because the screenshot was that of copyrighted software but the license under which it was uploaded appears to be an open-source license. See WP:NFCC.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RTM Reference

Road the Maps is a surrogate reference point distributed by Microsoft Corp. I added this point topic to ensure reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Riojas Mclemore (talk • contribs) 12:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Some changes to article structure; additions of new features

I added some features along with sources and structured two sections into further sub-sections to enhance readability. I hope you like the changes. I noticed however after editing that there is already another article on new features. The feature section in this main article on Windows 8 already contained the features section I put my additions into, but it didn't link to the new features article. So maybe in later edits we can summarize all new important features and links to the new features article directly below. We should do the same to the history section since it is currently too long. Such changes would substantially decrease the article in size. I am not sure if the total length we would end up with would adequately represent such an important project. I would like to hear some opinions on this. MarkMildenstein (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

W8 may prevent other OS from being installed

This should be implemented into the article itself. Now, I'm not even sure if this is true, but the controversy itself should be covered. Link.--Havermayer (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It actually doesn't.
http://www.winrumors.com/microsoft-clears-up-linux-confusion-over-windows-8-secure-boot-feature/
A RedHat engineer was implying that even having the secure boot option will stop Linux from being installed on certain computers, but that is far from the case, as it is up to the manufacterer on if it can be disabled or not. Microsoft has nothing to do with it, other than requring the option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs) 06:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree with VividNinjaScar. It is not about Microsoft Windows. But I even doubt if Microsoft is going to require it in general. They will likely just require it for OEM computers. Then people and businesses that buy Windows 8 off the shelf, can install it on legacy hardware. This makes most sense for Microsoft, as the company has always been interested in making as many people as possible run their their operating system. MarkMildenstein (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a new feature, and the competitors's claims are false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.103.193 (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The article does not say "Windows 8 may prevent other OS from being installed". It says "There has been some concern about..." which is both accurate, and reliably sourced. These concerns have been a large part of the news about Windows 8, and even if they're completely unfounded concerns, those concerns still exist/existed, and are still relevant to the article. - SudoGhost 15:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I completly agree with SudoGhost. --SF007 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding it in a section of it's own -- especially under that title -- give it undue weight. In the context of Windows 8, the claims of a competitor regarding MS's adoption of UEFI. Adding it in this manner give it infers credibility it does not deserve. Including it here in this manner is a spurious NPOV slander. 207.112.103.193 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Adding it in the "New Features" section as it is now is an accurate and realistic representation of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.103.193 (talk) 23:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Nice try, but no. Concerns are not a "feature", and your edit is removing sourced information, violating WP:WEIGHT. Someone being concerned about a feature is not notable in itself, but when this is discussed by multiple reliable sources, that gives it weight. Microsoft evidently felt it was notable enough to directly address it. Credibility of the concerns have nothing to do with it, the article is not stating the the concerns are true, merely that they exist and are notable, per WP:WEIGHT. - SudoGhost 23:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. This is not a direct consequence of Windows 8 - secure boot is not a new feature of the actual OS.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
What? Support of UEFI is certainly a new feature.207.112.103.193 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"Nice try"? It's clear that it is being given vastly too much wieght here (the concerns are from a _COMPETITOR_ and have disappeared as being unfounded -- because they are clearly unfounded. Keeping them here in this manner is an attempt to create NegPOV. Including the concern raised in a blog from an OS Competitor is reasonable. An entire section titled "multi boot concerns" is utter claptrap.
Wikipedia's purpose isnt to replicate every "true thing" but provide a concise and clear representation of reality (all _significant_ viewpoints, "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented") A spurious and obviously false claim made by a competitor being presented in this way is a clear case of "undue weight. 207.112.103.193 (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Don't confuse "support" with "require." I think that it deserves a separate section as it is not a new feature. I don't think it's undue weight (and this is coming from a Windows lover who has tested Windows 8).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A non-issue gets an entire section all of it's own? Sounds like 207 is right. It looks like undue wieght to me. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it is a non-issue; if it is, it belongs in a generic "Criticism" section. It definitely does not belong in the "New features" section.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources don't consider this a non-issue, and apparently neither does the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Even if these concerns turn out to be for nothing, these concerns were covered in multiple reliable third-party sources, which means the section is not undue. - SudoGhost 00:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
At best, it's a minor blip. The vast majority of Windows users don't duel boot their computers and probably don't even know what Linux is. Saying that there are multiple reliable sources is meaningless. Big deal. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands or more of third-party reliable sources about Windows 8. Taking a minor detail and blowing it out of proportion is classic undue. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
While a majority of Windows users don't dual boot their computers, a vast majority of Linux users do. There are "literally hundreds" of reliable sources covering this. This section is in accordance with WP:WEIGHT, not liking it or thinking it's a "blip" is irrelevant. If you feel that this is taking a minor detail and blowing it out of proportion, take it up with the reliable sources, as this article is simply reflecting these sources. - SudoGhost 01:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)\
That it is being *covered* does not satisify WP:WEIGHT which I quoted above for you. The **opinion** that W8 support of UEFI will prevent linux from being booted is an opinion **NO ONE HOLDS**. Not even the original blog poster. He said; "There's no indication that Microsoft will prevent vendors from providing firmware support for disabling this feature and running unsigned code." MS has clarified (paraphrase SS); "we will not require the feature be prevented from being turned off. Nor make any issue with loading other keys". Further, this is an **OPTION** for OEMs. OEMs are free to do as they wish re: additional keys. ALSO, linux running or not on a W8 certified host has **NOTHING** to do with Windows 8. THAT is a matter for the articles on Linux. This entire thing is FUD, spread by a competitor and now being smeared into this article where it has *zero* place. It's not even relevant. 207.112.103.193 (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

please do not shout (use all-caps). I think a paragraph is not what it deserves, but a criticism section including other criticism is fine. I think it does have place, albeit a small one. I agree with SudoGhost on the fact that dual-booting occurs often with Linux users. Elaboration on this is not needed, and that should satisfy WP:UNDUE. All we need is one sentence (short) on the concerns, and one sentence on Microsoft's reply.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

SudoGhost: According to this article,[1] Linux has less than 1% of the market. A vast majority of 1% is still less than 1%. This just proves the point about undue weight. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me, but I'm failing to see what that has to do with the fact that multiple reliable sources covered this. These concerns do not only apply to Linux, but other versions of Windows as well. Regardless, that a small percentage of a group is affected by something has no bearing on the WP:WEIGHT of reliable sources covering it. WP:WEIGHT in no way says that the number of people potentially affected has any bearing on the weight of the statement, especially when the subject are concerns, not affected people. - SudoGhost 02:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
SudoGhost: There are hundreds, if not, thousands or more reliable sources about this topic. Saying that you have multiple reliable sources about a particular aspect is meaningless. We have to look at the big picture. How do the number of reliable sources about dual-booting with Linux (or any other OS) compare to the number of reliable sources about the new Task Manager? Or the new Metro UI? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Since you're ignoring what I've already said, I'll repeat it. There are hundreds of reliable sources that address this subject. This section is a single paragraph that details these concerns, and Microsoft's response. Multiple reliable sources are not "meaningless". Regardless of this, Wikipedia does not judge weight "by the number of sources" but through the prominence of each viewpoint. That the President of the Windows division of Microsoft specifically chose to reply to these concerns shows the prominence of this information. - SudoGhost 03:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
SudoGhost: No, I've addressed it head on. We have to look at all the sources, not just a minority. Yes, there are hundreds, if not thousands of sources about Windows 8. But most aren't about the ability to dual-boot with Linux. Most sources don't even mention Linux. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Repeating that there are thousands of reliable sources about Windows 8 has nothing to do with the fact that there are also hundreds of reliable sources about this secure boot issue, and nothing at all to do with the fact that WP:WEIGHT is determined by the prominence of the viewpoint, not the number of reliable sources. It isn't a percentage contest, or a "any information with under 1000 reliable sources is WP:UNDUE" scenario. That a majority of sources concerning Windows 8 aren't about dual-booting with Linux has nothing to do with the information being discussed, and has nothing to do with WP:WEIGHT. Any article with due "minority" opinions have "most sources" not being about that minority. "We have to look at all the sources, not just a majority." - SudoGhost 04:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Jasper Deng: I'm fine with a one sentence (short) on the concerns, and one sentence on Microsoft's reply. This seems like a reasonable compromise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

As a new feature

On a different note, this point about secure boot is not a new feature. UEFI support!=UEFI requirement/reccomendation. The UEFI article says that support was added in Windows Server 2008/Vista SP1.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

But UEFI support != secure boot support. Windows hasn't supported secure boot so far; has it? - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
As for the requirement and associated controversy, the Hardware requirements section would be appropriate. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I can agree with that. We can simply avoid using the term "secure boot" as a synonym of "UEFI".Jasper Deng (talk) 03:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a good section for it as well. I moved it to that section, but if someone disagrees and would like to revert this I'd hold no objections, so long as they explained it here. As for the secure boot and UEFI, they are not synonyms, but secure boot is a UEFI protocol. - SudoGhost 03:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Linux booting on UEFI compliant hardware is a discussion for Linux articles. It is simply irrelevant here. A tempest in a teapot designed by NegPOV detractors wishing to use wikipedia as a propaganda tool. Even the title of this discussion "W8 may prevent other OS from being installed" is nonsensical and NegPOV FUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.20.0 (talk) 01:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Australian Linux users

This quibble should not be included here. The sum of the information is: An australian said to the consumer protection agency; "Hey, we think this is a problem." and the agency said "Nothing to see here, move along".

It is undue weight to be included here. Totally pointless. Anyone can make an accusation; the accusation itself is not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.160.233 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Your comment is completely in line with the above consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The response was not "Nothing to see here, move along", it was "Maybe". I'm not saying it belongs or doesn't belong, but the above summary isn't accurate. - SudoGhost 04:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe pigs will fly out of your butt too. Or, "Maybe" you'll get to be the first contestant on dancing with the Stars: North Korea. The Aussies clearly dismissed the half baked claim. That's clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.126.37 (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
If it's clear, then cite it. Because the source given does not make this "clear". - SudoGhost 01:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Non-issue?!

I'm reading a lot of entries here making the claim that requiring secure boot would be a non-issue, and that it would only be required of OEMs who are preinstalling Windows anyway. This is folly! As it is right now, dual-booting is not the only reason why one would want to disable secure boot. For example, live CDs, live USBs, etc.—methods by which Free Software evangelists such as I demonstrate and spread GNU/Linux to casual users—would all become dramatically less practical. Right now, all users have to do when I hand them an Ubuntu Desktop CD is boot it with the current stick-it-in-and-hit-F12 method. If their OEMs enable secure boot by default in UEFI at Microsoft's insistence then what? These casual users have to go in and mess with the UEFI settings? They have to turn off secure boot themselves to try Ubuntu and then turn it on again to boot Windows 8 OEM? What if they do want to dual-boot? They have to jailbreak their PCs or add a signed key from their manufacturer "allowing" them to boot something alongside Windows? This is a legitimate issue. To dismiss it as being a problem for only a small minority of the market share not only misses the point, it dismisses the entire principle of fair competition.

Also note: Microsoft prices OEM preinstall licenses of Windows at a much lower point than retail licenses. This means that casual users will only ever buy computers that come with Windows preinstalled since buying Windows retail will cost them more. Thus, users will have to commit to either choice of Windows 8 OEM or "other" before buying. Users who have never tried a Desktop GNU/Linux distro will naturally opt for the OS they know and choose Windows 8 OEM preinstall for convenience and cost regardless of whether or not Microsoft has deliberately made it more difficult to switch later by enforcing secure boot. In this way, Microsoft will keep desktop GNU/Linux adoption stunted and preserve the perception that Linux is an obscure alternative OS for tech nerds only. Checkmate!

Non-issue? I think not. Luke Loughead (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please adhere to a neutral point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the talk page, not the article, so I'm not sure why you're warning me about NPOV. I am refuting your claim that the secure boot requirement is a "non-issue." On the contrary, the issue will have profound and adverse effects on the efforts of the Free Software community. You voiced your informed opinion on the significance of the criticisms and I am voicing mine. My opinion is that the criticisms should not be dismissed. Luke Loughead (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a self-described free software evangelist who admits to trying to spread GNU/Linux to casual users isn't the best person to edit this article? See Conflict of Interest and WP:ADVOCACY. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
The talk page is for discussing the improvement of the article, so WP:NPOV does come into play when discussing the content of the article. If you have reliable sources backing up your statements, that would greatly help, and would allow other editors to judge your comments based on those sources, not just by your word. - SudoGhost 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If Windows 8 implements this rigorously, then it would be quite a hefty issue. Let me justify my rationale:

Obviously, this won't be a problem to most users who run Windows as their default and only OS. From WP's article on usage share of OSes, Windows range anywhere from 77% to 87%, Linux kernel based at around 1.9% to 6.2%. To sum up: there's a reasonable argument for inclusion, but not it's own sections. A couple of sentences should be fine. Bunston (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Picture password (unsourced)

I couldn't find any reliable source for the picture password. There are only sources stating Microsoft got a patent recently, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be included in Windows 8. in Additions I even couldn't see any such features in the Developer Preview, otherwise I would most likely also have found a source. We have three options here: 1) find a source asap, 2) delete it until Microsoft releases more information about it, 3) move it to the bottom of the New Features to Windows 8 article and mark it as possible feature there with a source in regards to the patent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMildenstein (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm running windows 8 preview, it's there, you have to turn it on in the control panel, it's the same place you change your password or switch to a pin password Mark (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
it was also demoed in the keynote on a touchsreen Mark (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I used windows 8 on a Virtualbox(Almost 50% data is in there when i am using) But the picture code didn't work. -Preceding Signed but non-login'd comment by Logologologol 03:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.70.68.116 (talk)
There is no guarantee that VirtualBox includes the ability to use a webcam like this.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Too early for reception/criticisms sections

I think it is too early for reception/criticisms sections. This should be added only after release. The rule is that the info should not become obsolete quickly. Andries (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree Captain Stack (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree, there is absolutely no rule/policy (that I am aware of!) that forbids or even discourages the inclusion of a reception section for a product not yet with a final version available. Sure, we should strongly avoid speculation, but I'm not arguing about adding speculation. So in addition of the "rule" mentioned by Andries not being found anywhere, the argument of "info should not become obsolete quickly" seems terribly weak: Information only gets "obsolete quickly" if the article is not properly written. Example: Reviewer A tests Windows 8 developer preview and finds the touch-based interface very user-friendly; we add the text "Reviewer X finds the touch-based interface in Windows 8 developer preview very user friendly", see, not hard, right? This information will remain true even if the final version is released and has a horrible touch-based interface. (assuming, of course, reviewer X was not caught lying in the meantime, etc...) In addition to that, "old reviews" can always be removed once more recent ones are available. Jerebin (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
In addition to my abstract opinion above, the real/current issue seems to be about secure boot and linux/alternative systems that Andries removed. Regarding that, it seems pretty clear this is not speculation and Microsoft will indeed require "secure boot", and not only we have reliable sources to indicate that (even Microsoft itself), there are also reliable sources indicating this feature is very worrying. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Jerebin (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
But this non-dual boot may be a non-issue. Remember the critical pre-release reviews of the ipad. After release, nearly all of these criticisms evaporated. I do not think it makes sense to include pre-reviews in an article. Andries (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I certainly agree "this non-dual boot may be a non-issue", but it seems hard to deny this topic is already an issue today. Regarding the iPad, I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the topic, but from your own words, it seems there were pre-reviews that did not apply to the final product, well, this seems to be a different case, since we are not really talking about reviews in the traditional sense, but more about legal/technical practices by Microsoft. There is also the possibility of moving this section to other articles, like Trusted Computing, Hardware DRM, Criticism of Microsoft or other one, and simply keep a link here... regardless of that, this seems to be a very relevant issue. --Jerebin (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Except that Windows 8 will have no bearing on what OSs a given device can run (linux or otherwise). It's apples and oranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.188.5 (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a reception/reaction section, but I agree with this removal.[7] Nobody (besides a small minortity) cares about Linux anymore. Apple's MacOS and iOS, and Google's Android are the only serious competitors to Windows 8. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe the EFF would disagree with the assessment that "nobody cares about Linux anymore". If you have a source to back that up, you're more than welcome to provide it. However, a criticism of a Windows 8 feature has nothing to do with "serious competitors" to the OS.
With that said, I agree that the edit cited above is unnecessary, but I do think that the current wording found in the "Hardware requirements" section needs to be reworded. It's very stilted writing, and at face value looks like it was "trimmed" to remove any possible negativity about that OS, despite the reliable sources. - SudoGhost 02:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and reworded it slightly in an attempt to fix the issue that I felt was present. - SudoGhost 02:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Linux

I've heard from a friend that it has a Linux kernel. I think that is highly unlikely, and that Hell will go Glacial before Windows goes OpenSource. What might be the source of such a confused idea? A demo mockup demonstrating some Win8 GUI concepts maybe? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 08:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Incredibly unlikely. Windows 8 has more in common code-wise with Windows 95 than it does Linux.[citation needed] pcuser42 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
I've read several articles comparing the Windows To Go feature and Linux Live USBs... maybe that is what your friend heard about...? --SF007 (talk) 17:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Program manager

See Talk:Program Manager#Windows 8. — DeFender1031 11:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Secure boot controversy

Hello all, I know this has already been discussed, but the media now has new information that contradicts many of the assumptions most of us made. In particular, it now seems clear Microsoft will force OEMs to lock-down ARM devices, not allowing users to boot other systems. [8] [9] [10] [11] Therefore I think it is clear that we are not giving undue weight to Microsoft "opponents/critics" when we report on this feature, the controversy surrounding it, and the potential implications of it. Also, regardless of the previous consensus, I dare to say it is invalid as it was based on incorrect information. --SF007 (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that part of this dispute deserves more than about two or three sentences.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't really see a reason to "artificially" limit coverage to "just two or three sentences". The issue is clearly controversial (reliable sources clearly label this as "controversial" or "a controversy": [12] [13] [14] [15]). I also forgot to note above that ArbCom considers that "It disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.". --SF007 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, the neutrality here is the question.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
This appears to have increasingly sufficient WP:WEIGHT, so I'm not sure what neutrality issues there are? - SudoGhost 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, two large paragraphs to this side of the whole secure boot dispute is too much weight.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I only see one paragraph. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I saw two, but that's because the diff was in two parts..Jasper Deng (talk) 20:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I added that proof for verification. Wei2912 (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The quote doesn't need to be included in the article to verify it. Only a link is necessary. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Any ideas on how to replace the quote with a link? The current link I have is not direct and few users would go through the whole agreement to find the proof. Maybe you can help with tht as a way to shorten the page? Wei2912 (talk) 07:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
We already have three reference links on the statement; each is an article specifically about the Secure Boot issue, and two of them include the quote. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Just to note something, this is against the law as according to the agreement between Microsoft and US, yet no one has added that part (or mine got removed). Should I add it? This information is verifiable and does not give undue weight to the article (i may be biased towards Linux, sorry).

This would mean that it is no longer just controversy, so we might have to rename the heading. If you oppose to this, please state your reason clearly so that we can debate it. Thanks. Wei2912 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the source for this first. This is news to me. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Here it is (an agreement between the United States and Microsoft):

C. Microsoft shall not restrict by agreement any OEM licensee from exercising any of the following options or alternatives: [...] 4. Offering users the option of launching other Operating Systems from the Basic Input/Output System or a non-Microsoft boot-loader or similar program that launches prior to the start of the Windows Operating System Product. [...] from http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f200400/200457.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wei2912 (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, this agreement appears to have expired:
"V. Termination
Unless this Court grants an extension, this Final Judgment will expire on the fifth anniversary of the date it is entered by the Court."
Second, it's not Wikipedia's place to deem Microsoft's actions a violation of the agreement. This is a type of original research by synthesis. As I see it, Microsoft's current action wouldn't violate the agreement, because the OEMs can still allow any OS that's compatible with Secure Boot. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
If a reliable source reports that Microsoft's actions are illegal, then we have something we can write about. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay, good points you have. Thanks for them. BTW i have no idea what happened to my above comment which caused it to become unsigned. Wei2912 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Consumer preview/beta

Because Microsoft calls it a consumer preview, let's use that. We don't know if Microsoft will have another release named the beta or not.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft has also called the late February release a beta. (http://www.engadget.com/2011/12/06/microsoft-demos-new-windows-phone-marketplace-now-with-more-met/, 1st video, 3:20) Your version of the article specifically contradicts Microsoft's statement that they would release a beta in late February. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
However, a newer source says it's a consumer preview.[16].Jasper Deng (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
And my revision tonight reflected the fact that two names had been used for the same thing, rather than treating the consumer preview as something different from the beta. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:40, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Is it still a beta, that's the question.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Would removing the references to a "beta" resolve our conflict? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, except that we should still mention the beta being turned into the consumer preview, like "While a 'Windows 8 Beta' was originally expected for February 2012, Microsoft has revealed that it would release a 'consumer preview' version instead."Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that calling it multiple things, isn't the same as saying it's turned from the old thing into the new thing. The two terms aren't mutually exclusive; a public beta is a kind of consumer preview. It would be different if Microsoft had positioned either as the name of the release (e.g. Windows 8 Beta or Windows Consumer Preview). - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that we can, for organizational purposes, list it as a beta, but we'll have to still acknowledge the layman's name for it.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Windows 8 builds internaly show Windows 8 Beta in watermark[17]68.149.175.120 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I think this version does just that. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I think this is something interesting to note, and we might even write a paragraph on this naming thing.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I don't think there is any "naming" thing. Microsoft hasn't used either as a name so far. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I think we should use both names as in "consumer preview or beta". We don't want to make a judgement on this. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Then we're back to what I originally wanted. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8&diff=472368290&oldid=472337290 :) - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
...minus a section retitle. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
It was a section merge. I'm fine with either as the title; I just want it to be one section. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Fine with me. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 @ ARM / Compatibility

Windows 8 for ARM processors will not run software created for x86; software will have to be ported by its developers to create ARM versions from source code. This is correct, but shouldn't we elaborate a little bit on the reasons why this is so? Though I'm just making assumptions, I'm pretty sure it's because of the major differences between CISC and RISC architecture. (a wagonload of instructions are unknown on a RISC CPU, that's by design) andy 77.191.193.135 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Reminder: reliable sources

Self-published sources, such as blogs and forums, are not typically considered reliable sources. I consider sites such as Windows8News and the like to be such sources, and they should be purged out of the article as soon as possible, in favor of citations from reliable or official publications. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU. A lot of MS related articles have gotten really sloppy lately (Windows Phone especially). Captain Stack (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Redesigning the Windows Logo - http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/02/17/redesigning-the-windows-logo.aspx Abhishikt (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Relevance

I don't agree that this logo should've lost mention in this article. It's quite a big change.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In keeping with consistency of the other "Features new to 7/Vista/XP"-articles, I think it should be left out or have its own article all together, for example discussing the various logos used over time in different OS'es from Microsoft - Meewam (talk) 20:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wait a minute .. ! Wrong article. I still think it should be left out, but need to check the other OS articles. Meewam (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It deserves at least a mention. Elaboration can occur in other articles. It alone cannot be an article, since we don't write articles about software logos except under exceptional circumstances, which is not the case here.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:44, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Just did a check on the other OS articles: a mentioning of logos used is absent. I fail to see the importance but it could be mentioned inline as part of the description of the Metro style language. - Meewam (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't belong on the Metro article because it is not a unique aspect of Metro, but only of Windows 8. The other OS's did not make substantial changes in the logo from the flag, since the very first Windows version's logo.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The degree of change of the logo from earlier logos, I think is irelevant. It doesn't merit a header of its own in the article. Meewam (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I disagree. Who would've expected Microsoft to drop the flag-like design?Jasper Deng (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It's one line in the article: Microsoft introduced a new logo. And what's that to do with the function of the operating system? And what's next? The way they employ marketing in a radically new way or the radically new packaging? My point being that we should leave marketing out of the article. If the logo has to be mentioned, it could be mentioned inline (in this very article!) as part of something more, for instance the mentioning of how the user interface in Windows 8 sports the new Metro design and that a new logo was designed to convey that design principle; not a header of it's own. Meewam (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I gave it a single sentence for a reason. I see no better place in the article for it. If you think marketing does not belong, Windows 7's article proves not to be case.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A sentence about a logo, morooned and in no connection with the rest of the article, is not a plus. Why don't you comment on my suggestion? How is this even a discussion when it seems you're bent on just one thing? I'll leave it for now and find a better place to mention the new logo as suggested. Meewam (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, it's completely out of place elsewhere in the article; it's like we cannot do the same for the System requirements of Windows Server 8.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It ultimately doesn't matter what is or is not present in other articles, if reliable sources have published information commenting on this, giving it weight, it should have at least a short sentence mentioning it. As far as whether it deserves its own section or not, I don't believe it does, I personally think it might possibly be better in the "Metro UI" section, as the new logo is reflective of the new user interface and was changed to "reflect our Metro style design principles". If reliable sources and Microsoft mention it alongside the Metro UI, I don't see any compelling reason why this article shouldn't either. That's just my 2 cents on it. - SudoGhost 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
No reliable source couples it with Metro. What I've seen is that both are mentioned because both are independently important to Windows 8; I've also seen sources only mentioning the logo alone.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The source that originally unveiled the logo couples it with Metro quite clearly, saying that the logo was changed because "an evolution of our logo would better reflect our Metro style design principles", and it goes on to say that the change was initiated because they "spent a full day sharing some of the Metro style design philosophy; the Windows brand history and values as well as graphic design and technology industry trends." It was based on the Windows 1.0 logo because they "found it both refreshing and inspiring in relation to the work we have been doing on the Metro style design visuals." and that "It was important that the new logo carries our Metro principle..." - SudoGhost 23:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
OK, then. How about making a subsection for the logo under the Metro section, or making such a section on the Metro article?Jasper Deng (talk) 02:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_8/Archive_1&oldid=1137711962"