Talk:Windows 10 Mobile/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The image is not representative of Windows 10 Mobile

The image added to the infobox is not of any recent build of Windows 10 Mobile and contains the old logo's of Microsoft People, Microsoft Bing Maps, Microsoft Xbox Music, Microsoft Xbox Films & T.V., M.S.N. Weather, the Microsoft Windows Calculator, the Microsoft Windows Camera, M.S.N. News, overall all of these logo's are from early builds and are now only used in Windows Phone 8.1, even the Microsoft Outlook Mail, and Microsoft Outlook Calendar have their old Windows Phone 8.1 logo's.

I'm not sure who added this image and I can understand that this one is selected because it's the official one from Microsoft, but it's simply no longer factual anymore. I suggest that we should take note from Windows 10 and let a Wikipedia user upload a neutral image of a "fresh" consumer device with the most updated icons and brands (as Microsoft Xbox Music is now Microsoft Groove, Microsoft Xbox Video is now Microsoft Films & T.V. Etc.).

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I prefer this image over the heavily personalised ones from earlier, but the uploader should've at least bothered to pick a more recent build.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It's an official Microsoft press image. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I know, just an early press release and not a recent one, though as this has already been resolved I don't see any use in replying, but only to clarify that I know that it's an official image used by Microsoft, only that it was from the days that the operating system/update was first announced as opposed to a more recent version the average consumer actually had in their hands (and these people tend to be the WP:READERS.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2016

Replace the current image with one of an actual consumer version of Windows 10 Mobile as this is an early Windows Insider release propagated by Microsoft's early marketing of the platform and various Microsoft services use archaic brands and icons that have since been replaced (Exampli gratia Xbox Music -> Microsoft Groove).

86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done by ViperSnake151. —Codename Lisa (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Image

I want to upload a screenshot of 10586.164 with all updated apps to represent the latest changes, no personalisation and no violet colour. But I need help with the license related fields of the image uploader. It would be nice if someone told me what to write in which field. Thanks, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered that I can directly update the image from the file page. But still, I need help on what to write on the "File Changes" dialogue box and what changes(if needed) are to be made to the file description, license and other stuff on that page. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chandradeepdey01:

Hi. You can send me the image; I'll upload it. You can learn from what I do. (After all, you can see them all, right?)

Or you can upload the image and I'll help you fill in the information required in subsequent edits.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Added the image.

Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Ohh and the file changes box seems to have a character limit.. So the part where i stated the changes i made to the actual arrangement got omitted.. I replaced the People, Photos and Xbox app tiles with Maps, Camera and Xbox Avatars app due to privacy concerns.. This is the only customization made..

Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 14:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chandradeepdey01: From which mobile device does this screenshot come?

—Codename Lisa (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Lumia 630, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 15:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Good. I've added the licensing tag and updated the source. Also, the image's dimensions needed to be downsized in accordance to WP:NFCC. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, wow that license is actually a template.. Guess i should have checked the source of other microsoft product screenshots.. Does wikipedia have a list of such license templates? Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found it. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 18:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chandradeepdey01: @Codename Lisa: Hi, I wanted to change the Screenshot which , i think, looks a little bit good. I've uploaded the image to Wikimedia Commons now i've to only link that image. I thought before doing this permission is must. Please allow me to change the Screenshot of this page. Thanks, Babbark (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Here is the screenshot , and please check if i've uploaded it correctly. Thanks, Babbark (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done by the user. —Codename Lisa (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

References to upgrade release.

Hello, I think someone very good in English should edit the article to minimize the occurrences of the sentence "windows phone 8.1 devices got the upgrade on mar 17".. Currently the article is very annoying to read with that sentence appearing once every 5 lines. Thanks, Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What are you talking about? ViperSnake151  Talk  21:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Read the whole article again and I think I will take back this request.. Chandradeepdey01 (talk) 06:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Restyled codenames and section headings.

¿Can anyone tell me what was wrong with the original "Threshold" and "Redstone" headings? This is how they're at Windows 10 version history and at Android version history codenames are simply placed between quotation marks, @User931: please explain your edits, I don't necessarily disagree with adding "codename" to Redstone, but we could've just as easily modelled it after the Android V.H. model.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. Same question. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Correct use of language

Hi.

Perhaps the article watchers have so far noticed a dispute between me (Codename Lisa) and User931. The subject of the dispute is the use of language. The most important part is:

• User931 believes we should use the language the way Microsoft does. Hence, per Microsoft language, 1511 is "Version" and "10.0.10586.164" is "OS build".[1]
• I on the other hand, contend that we should use natural well-established language, the thing that the article was doing before User931 came along. In the established computer terminology, "10.0.10586.164" is the version number. "10" is the major version number, "0" is the minor version number, "10586" is the build number and "164" is the revision number. Microsoft uses language incorrectly a lot anyway. It says "Mail app" instead of "the Mail app"; it uses "boot partition" and "system partition" incorrectly; is say "x86" instead of "IA-32".

Of course, there are other minor points too. User931 writes that the release Windows 10 Mobile coincides with the release of certain Lumia phones while I don't think there is any coincident at all. I also contend that use of <ref>...</ref> in headings is clumsy.

What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I just wanted to say kid gloves only, CL. User931 is a good guy. Fleet Command (talk) 13:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

One doesn't judge based on what you personally think of editors but on their individual edits, this prevents tribalism and other biases on Wikipedia.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why Windows 10 Mobile version history should be treated differently than Android or iOS version history which uses official version information? It's impossible to have the version history fully objective since it's about a product devloped from a company, therefore just as in the Android and iOS article we trust in the information provided by the company about the version history and version features. And as i've said, there is no official information whatsoever about Threshold or Redstone so we can't know it's even correct. However, we do know that the official version of Windows 10 mobile currently is Version 1511. But of some reason you don't want this information displayed in the article. User931 12:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no! Another "other stuff exists" argument. Quite frankly, I couldn't care any less about other stuff.

"...we trust in the information provided by the company ..." No, we don't! Information provided by the company is primary source and riddled with advertisement. Even if we completely trust it, it is still no excuse to reproduce their linguistic mistakes. —Codename Lisa (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how "incorrectly" applies here. The US uses the term "Americans" incorrectly, implying the people of Canada, the Caribbean, Central and South America all reside in some other hemisphere. But, English and other sources use the term as the US does, so WP follows the sources, even if "incorrect". Sources quoting MS use MS's terminology on builds/versions. Do more sources use other terminology? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:01, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, yes. This wrong terminology is even wrong by Microsoft's own standards and is unprecedented. Apart from 2000 other Microsoft software titles, even blogs.microsoft.com does not use this fangled "OS build" and "version" distinction. For example, winver.exe in Windows 7 reports "Version 6.1 (Build 7601: Service Pack 1)" and Powershell.exe reports "6.1.7601 Service Pack 1", labeling each component as I explained earlier. Example output:

PS C:\Users\Codename Lisa> [System.Environment]::OSVersion.Version

Major  Minor  Build  Revision
-----  -----  -----  --------
6      1      7601   65536

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a rubbish argument to make per se as it specifically states that "A rationale used in discussions is that other, similar pages or contents exist and have precedential value. The rationale may be valid in some contexts but not in others: Other stuff sometimes exists according to consensus or Policies and guidelines, sometimes in violation of them." so basically you're saying that you don't care about comparable subjects, this is your flaw as an editor, not of Wikipedia as a system so User931 and A D Monroe III make pretty good points as Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile is a mobile operating system like Android and iO.S. and it would only be rational to follow their examples as their changelogs are some pretty well made articles. Dismissing an argument because you as a person couldn't care less about it is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that aside Microsoft does have a different system than Apple and Google respectively so I am honestly more inclined to agree with you and the current version than User931's as Windows 10 Mobile lists updates different than the others do.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I think we're missing the point here. Even the heading of this discussion is off-target; WP must ignore any editor's "correct" or "incorrect" opinions, and relies on WP:V. Here, we have two versions of terminology to choose from for this article. If the great majority of WP:RSs favor one of these versions, that's the one we must use. If it's a mix, we must find some mixed solution. So far, I've seen no sources presented. (The "go look for yourself" argument above would only hold weight if no sources that can be better cited exist.) Please, lets leave all comments about editors out, and simply list sources. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

¿Build 14327?

According to this article at PC World a new build has been released, I'm not sure if this is an error at their part of if we're free to add another addition to the changelog.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 10:31, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Recent vandalism.

A Pakistani I.P. user, and later a Pakistani named newly created user vandalised this page, I'm not sure but I think that someone should request protection if the issue persists.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

The image

For some reason someone replaced the image again, ¿is there a reason for this?

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I just noticed that someone replaced it, ignore the above message, but still please note that the current image is there for a reason.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I think I explicitly explained the reason: File:Windows phone 10.png is a copyright violation and WP:NFCC violation. Every bit of third party content in the image must be properly attributed to its author. In this case, the image of dog is the third party content. The screenshot itself must be attributed to Microsoft. But most importantly, in accordance to WP:NFCC#3, this image must have never been uploaded in the first place.

Oh, and nobody ignored your message above; rather, your message ignored me. I addressed the copyvio in 14:57. Your message was posted two hours later on 17:02.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Request addition of a forced TOC

Title explains it. I don't know how to do so asking experienced editors. Reason - Impossible finding a specific version when scrolling through version history on mobile Chandradeep Dey (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I just discovered that there is a TOC on the desktop page, but it does not show up on mobile. Is there a way to add it? Chandradeep Dey (talk) 16:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

The mobile version automatically suppresses TOC when the display grows smaller than a certain size. There is nothing you can do about it.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of history section (or fixed bugs entries at least)

It seems having already fixed issues is WP:IINFO and WP:UNDUE (see Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues). I am do not understand yet why, but to keep Wikipedia consistent it must be removed. Please, contact User Talk:TranslucentCloud for any questions. I will delete it if nobody disagrees or if nobody refutes User Talk:TranslucentCloud arguments about Surface Book fixed bug removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tandrewmark (talk • contribs) 07:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I find your first sentence unintelligible, but for the rest of it... I see. You are justifying removal of the entire "Version history" section here on the basis of someone else's insisting that reports of "fixed bugs", outside of a "history" or similar section, in a completely different article, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Even though most of the history section here doesn't have a thing to do with "fixed bugs". And even though, in that other discussion, you're arguing for inclusion of historical info. In other words, here you are acting contrary to your position over there.

My interpretation is that you are threatening to WP:DISRUPT Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. "If that other editor prevails in that other discussion, then we'll just have to do things like this to this article and many others." Please don't do that.

Your statement "I will delete it if ... nobody refutes [someone else's argument about different content on a different page]" is similarly disruptive.

As are your repeated claims that anyone who disagrees with your deletion should go argue the point with someone else. You made the deletion here (of well-referenced material), you have to justify it.

As far as any other discussions are concerned, you need to make your case(s) in the talk page(s) of the other article(s). Don't try to make your point by disrupting other articles (like this one) to try to show how awful it would be here if you don't prevail over there.

You may be blocked from editing if you persist with such actions and attitude. (Oh, and please sign your talk page posts? Thanks.) Jeh (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading through the dispute at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues, it appears you are actually in favour of the inclusion of detailed history sections in articles, which combined with your comment and edit summary makes it look like you're trying to discredit TranslucentCloud's position by indiscriminately applying it to other articles. Please be advised that such behaviour is considered disruptive and is forbidden. If I've misinterpreted your actions, then I apologise in advance, but in that case I would ask that you explain your removal of version history from this article with something more than "but editor X did the same thing article Y". Thank you. Indrek (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am not a vandal that want to remove content from Wikipedia. I want to improve Wikipedia. But User Talk:TranslucentCloud removed content without a proper explanation and not even administrators helped to block his vandalization, so I came here for help. Please, continue the discussion at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues to reach a consensus. Tandrewmark (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that vandalism is defined as "a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia", and doesn't automatically cover any change (including removal of content) that you happen to disagree with. Unless there's good evidence to the contrary, you should assume that TranslucentCloud is acting in good faith and trying to improve Wikipedia. Disputes over specific edits are natural and happen all the time, but disruptive editing and accusations of vandalism are not an appropriate response in such cases. Instead, you should follow Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes. If you're feeling completely stuck and don't know where to begin, consider visiting WP:Teahouse, which is specifically geared towards new users. I see a number of helpful links have also been posted on your talk page; if you haven't already, considering reading through those as well. Good luck! Indrek (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, continue the discussion on Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues. Thank you. Tandrewmark (talk) 19:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You're not getting it. Once again: This talk page section is about your WP:POINTy removal of a large amount of material from this article. If you're agreeing to not do that here, that your deletion here was mistaken and that you won't do it again, could you please say so? Thanks. (This will not preclude further discussion at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues.) Jeh (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my deletion was a mistake. I am not a vandal. I will not remove it again. Will you help revert User Talk:TranslucentCloud blankings? Tandrewmark (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm already participating at Talk:Surface Book#Known Issues. Jeh (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging your mistake. Unfortunately I don't have time to get involved in the other dispute.

That said, please do not attempt to recruit other editors into edit warring on your behalf like that. The dispute should be resolved through discussion, not reverts, and you should always keep in mind the possibility that consensus develops against you (even if you passionately believe you are right). I strongly recommend that you read the links that Jeh and I have posted here, as well as the ones on your talk page that I referred to earlier, and try to understand Wikipedia's core policies. It can be a lot to take in at first, but learning the ropes will help you avoid a lot of unnecessary frustration down the road, as well as prepare you for any future disputes you may find yourself involved in. Good luck! Indrek (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that consensus might develop against keeping information, that may even require removing minor issues referenced in this article. Tandrewmark (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are still trying to find justification for deleting content here based on the results of a discussion there. The same warnings I've already raised to you about WP:DISRUPTion are still applicable. Consensus in a discussion re a particular edit to a particular article applies to that edit to that article; it is neither a policy nor a guideline to be applied blindly to every other article on the site, even if the issues are superficially similar. Jeh (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I do not want to remove information from Wikipedia, but I want to keep Wikipedia consistent. How can we create a policy about this kind of information? So that Wikipedia articles are kept consistent. Tandrewmark (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Nevertheless, you did delete the entire history section here, despite your (correct) observation that many, many articles include history sections. As you know full well (I know because you raised this point to TranslucentCloud), there is ample precedent for inclusion of historical information—"fixed issues" not excluded—about current and past products.

But consistency between dissimilar point cases is an unreasonable thing to try for, and a completely unreasonable justification for your deleting an entire section (80,000 characters) here, just because inclusion of a single short paragraph (under 500 characters) of a specific historical point is being disputed elsewhere.

Please try to think more in terms of collaboration and less in terms of raising challenges. If you take a point decision from some discussion (any discussion, not just the one we're talking about here) and start making unjustified changes to other pages in the name of "consistency", you're likely to earn a very swift block. That just isn't how we do things. Discuss, don't disrupt. Jeh (talk) 07:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Latest Preview

Previews of Windows 10 are released in several rings, so it is debatable that there is any single build which constitutes the "latest" preview. If we're to use a definition of "Latest" to mean "the most recently published", then as of August 26 2016, the most recent preview is build 10.0.14393.103. If you go by the definition "the bleeding edge of development", then clearly the most recent preview as of today's date is build 10.0.14905.1000. Perhaps an appropriate approach would be to give the currently available previews in each of the three preview rings? 24.222.2.222 (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. :)

The latest version always has the highest version number. It is like a car: When someone says "it's the latest model", he isn't referring to date of manufacturing but the order of innovation.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. But with respect, the analogy to date of manufacture of an automobile is not perfect. For cars, barring deficiencies which may crop up from time to time in the production line, an automobile of a given model will be identical regardless of whether it was manufactured on date X or Y. With software builds, that is not necessarily true. Almost certainly, new source code was written to differentiate 10.0.14393.103 from 10.0.14393.67; and those source code modifications were very likely made more recently than the most recent source code modifications to have gone into 10.0.14905.1000. 24.222.2.222 (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Wise people don't nitpick at examples. Each example has a purpose that once served, any discrepancy beyond it hurts no one.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

All that being said, though, we really are in an unusual corner case at the moment, because typically the fast insider builds happen on a much faster schedule than all the other rings. The rapid succession of release preview builds we've had over the last couple of weeks is definitely the exception rather than the rule. Very soon we'll probably fall back into the normal pattern of fast insider builds being chronologically equal to or younger than all the other rings. 24.222.2.222 (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

As long as Microsoft hasn't branched the development of the two rings, we are okay. And from the looks of it, Microsoft intends not to let it happen. So, don't worry yourself to death.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Insiders strategy

I can't understand windows 10 mobile update strategy. how in both "redstone" one and two they fixing bug, I'm thinking it must be: 1. Fixing bug in current bulic release 'redstoe 1' 2. Adding new feature to next release 'redstone 2' I think this is logical, but microsoft's work is not reasonable. please explain it's strategy. At Last ... (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

They are fixing bugs in Threshold 1, Threshold 2 and Redstone 1. Redstone 2 is currently seeing feature additions. Obviously, bugs that are fixed in older versions also get fixed in Redstone 2. However, while Microsoft is working on OneCore, no new features are added on the front, making the bugfixes the most notable thing.--YannickFran (talk) 08:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"Threshold 1" was never ment to be released for Mobile, W10Ms release wasn't postponed.

The version history of this article has claimed so far that "Threshold 1" was never released and that the W10M release was postponed. That's not true, the sources don't confirm that and we knew far ahead that Windows 10 Mobiles release would not coincide with that of the desktop version. The claim that it "was an update for other editions" is also ridiculous, the only versions of Windows 10 out there where desktop and IoT. I don't see anyone claim Xbox, Holographic and Server where postponed because they didn't have a Threshold 1 (or even Threshold 2) release. Windows 10 was going to roll out in waves to different device families, the first where desktop and IoT, the second where Mobile and Xbox and the third was Server and Holographic. Threshold 1 was never ment to be a stable release for Mobile, so I removed that misconception.--84.195.214.118 (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

addresses in update log

What meaning of "addressed ... Issue". 1.I think that's mean just adressed and not fixed? Isn't that? 2.And if there is no fix of this issue is written in next update, that means the issue abandoned?At Last ... (talk) 21:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

"To address an issue" means "to fix/resolve a problem". FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:01, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed/Resolved ?At Last ... (talk) 20:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Massive Copyright Violation

The table of versions is in a great risk of being completely deleted due to copyright. This needs to be fixed ASAP --NazmusLabs (A small part of a bigger movement to better the world!) (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Please assert how version history information is copy write violation and not public domain information. Also compare version history information displayed for other operating systems versus Windows 10 Mobile. The removal of this information is tantamount to vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's entirely safe. As far as I can tell, it's largely drawn from public sources like this one. Also, it seems to me that Microsoft would be very unlikely to seek the takedown of such information even if they could. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

That's exactly the problem. See WP:COPYPASTE for details.

Also, "they won't seek takedown", "they will actually be happy about it" and "they owe us because we are advertising for them" are among the unacceptable excuses in Wikipedia. Wikipedia holds more stringent standards than copyright laws.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The very similar list about WP8.1 is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Phone_version_history. Should it be removed as well? 84.42.253.202 (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Then guys please let version history, getting back again ...At Last ... (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Games list?

I know there have been a ton of games released or planned for release on Windows 10 Mobile, but where exactly can I find that particular list? And maybe for the original Windows Mobile device?Zacharyalejandro (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest release Creators Update - 1703 (10.0.15063.297) / May 9, 2017; 35 days ago[2]

I have 1703 (10.0.15063.414) since June 15, 2017 running on my Windows Phone 640 --2A02:810A:113F:BBA0:B877:2D46:82FC:272E (talk) 23:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3