Talk:Windows 8/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Windows 8 reference books

A Windows 8 reference guide book has been written and published by educational author, Dennis Adonis. Similar instructional books are expected to join the list by the time Windows 8 is released. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.105.206 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

SKUs/editions

I wonder how much we can trust this source's information. For all we know this might not be a complete list, nor can we say that it's definitely correct.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Since it is non-official at the moment (and therefore subject to change), I think it is better to keep it off the article. But I would not strongly oppose the inclusion of that. --SF007 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Java apps

While I agree JS and C# and C++ can be used in this OS, I think it's saying too much to say Java.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the statement is: "Developers can write apps for Windows 8 in JavaScript and HTML, Visual Basic, C++, and C#."

This statement is a bit ambiguous. You can write applications in any language; it's transparent to the target architecture. Perhaps you mean to say Windows 8 will not support JVM (or vice versa)? I've noted this statement seems to be from this source, which says:

"Programmers can use HTML5, JavaScript, CSS, C#, Visual Basic, .NET, Silverlight, XAML and C++ to build Windows 8 app."

The full articles refers to the fact that provided developer tools only support the aforementioned languages. What say you we change that sentence to sometimes along the lines of: "The provided developer tools on the 64-bit Windows 8 OS iteration allow programmers to build Windows 8 apps in HTML5, JavaScript .. etc etc" Bunston (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps more accurately, as summarized from Microsoft's W8 guide:

Windows Runtime (WinRT) support developement of Windows 8 apps, which includes native support and API sets for various languages including XAML, Visual Basic, C++ and C#, and also is integrated into current and existing Microsoft programming frameworks that, in concordance with the app model and newly provided APIs, provide further compatibility to develop apps (web apps or otherwise) in HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript.

I'll try to put that into English later. Bunston (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 will have to support Java for at least three reasons:

• Eclipse - Given it's the official Google supported development environment for Android, Microsoft will have to support its ability to run on Windows 8 unless they want all Android developers switching to alternative operating systems (that's a lot of developers).
• The large number of internal corporate applications written in Swing. Granted, you don't see a lot of Java desktop apps "in the wild". But there are a lot of them running internally at corporations.
• Microsoft already got in trouble once for undermining Java on Windows. I don't think they want to go down that road again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxyonp (talk • contribs) 15:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Secure Boot Concerns and the DOJ

I'm a Linux fan myself, and I use it as my primary OS, but I think some Linux supporters are working overtime to spread FUD right now. The concerns about secure boot preventing the installation of alternative operating systems are likely to be very overblown. Consider that Microsoft is already under the microscope of the Department of Justice for anti-competitive business practices and causing vendor lockin. I don't think they are going to make the same mistake again and attract the ire of the DOJ once more. And even if they do, I think the DOJ will become involved again and put a stop to it. Again, Microsoft is already under a DOJ microscope. There's a lot of people right now who need to take a step back, calm down, and analyze this with a level head. Tuxyonp (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that directed at Wikipedia editors, or reliable sources? If these concerns are overblown, it is the reliable sources that are "overblowing" (is that a word?) it, the section is reflecting what is given. That Microsoft wouldn't/couldn't do XYZ because of the DoJ is WP:OR. If there are a lot of people that are overblowing it, then it includes ArsTechnica, PCWorld, The Register, The Guardian, the President of the Windows Division at Microsoft, CNet, ZDNet, ComputerWorld, and Wired. The article appears to be reflecting the information put forth by reliable sources (as it should). - SudoGhost 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

A little bit of both perhaps. I think it's safe to say that a DOJ challenge is inevitable if this appears be an attempt by Microsoft to create a Windows monopoly on ARM devices and it will actually prevent users from being able to use alternative operating systems on ARM devices. Again, Microsoft is already under a DOJ microscope. Even some of the so called "reliable sources" at ZDNet are sensationalizing this. For example, speculating that if they do it with ARM, Intel PCs will be next. That, of course, is extremely unlikely to happen. Microsoft has already been convicted of antitrust practices for strong-arming hardware vendors into only selling / supporting Windows on their devices.

Here's what I predict is actually going to happen (once we get rid of all the sensationalism and anti-Microsoft bloggers running around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling). You will be able to buy both locked and unlocked versions of the same device. If you buy an unlocked one, you can't get it with Windows 8 pre-installed. However, you would still be able to install Windows 8 on it yourself if you purchased a retail copy. What is NOT going to happen, however, is a situation where ARM devices can only run Windows, and you can't buy unlocked versions of them if you want to run something else. Microsoft already tried that trick. And the DOJ nailed them for it. It's not going to go any differently if they try it again.

I think both wiki editors and many bloggers / tech writers are blowing this way out of proportion. It sort of reminds me of the FUD in the Longhorn days, about how Java, Python, etc would no longer work on Windows because of the new managed APIs, etc., and Microsoft was going to lock people into programming only in .NET. Of course, that dystopian world never materialized either. Same thing is going to happen here. If you don't want to run Windows, you just have to buy an unlocked version of the device. That will be all there is to it. No vendor lock-in. No Windows monopoly. Nothing nearly as ominous as some wiki editors and some bloggers and tech writers are worrying about. Tuxyonp (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting thought, however it is WP:OR, and we should not remove content based on an opinion on what might happen. - SudoGhost 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But the problem is some of the sources that are being cited are nonobjective, agenda driven, and have a vested interest in sensationalizing things--often spinning their stories faster than a centrifuge to support their agenda. Because of that, they are not reliable sources. That's why there's a couple I have removed as unreliable sources. Their opinion is worth no more than yours or mine would be. Tuxyonp (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalization

I'm now wondering: Is Consumer Preview capital or not?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as it is the official name of the product. pcuser42 (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

What about using the term on its own (Consumer Preview instead of Windows 8 Consumer Preview)? That's the question, since it's not a full product name.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

If Microsoft uses the term on its own, follow their conventions. However I sense that they don't seeing as this question is being asked... pcuser42 (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Microsoft never seems to use partial names, only full names, leading to my question on the partial names.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It probably should be used in full form "Windows 8 Consumer Preview", first for clarity and also for trademark reasons. I think Microsoft does not like very much when people use "XP", "Vista", "Office" or similar "incomplete" naming. --SF007 (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote regarding secure boot

I've re-added this quote regarding secure boot, because the reasoning for removal is based on false assumptions:

• The editor commented "the devices are not useless ... they just can't boot linux" - Nobody is claiming they "are useless", Thom is claiming they are "useless as general computing devices". An enormous difference.
• "they just can't boot linux" - This clearly shows how the editor does not understand the fundamental problem with secure boot, it is not simply about "not running linux", but mainly about "only running a specific version of windows pre-approved by the hardware manufacturer". Sure, you could argue the hardware maker could sign other OSes, but this is like the "Apple's App Store approval": you are completely dependent on a third-party to decide what you can or can't run on your computer, its just terrible in principle and in practice.
• The editor commented the quote is "misleading", but that is not the case, as shown above. Even if we assume the hardware makers are very co-operative with the linux/programmer community, it still is an enormous burden for any "John Doe" to create his hobby OS. --Jerebin (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
• "This quote doesn't add any new information" - I do not dispute this, but the purpose of the quote is not to add information, but instead to explain things in plain English. Just look at the phrases from the article: "the manufacturer is free to choose which signatures are accepted by the feature" "the company revealed ARM manufacturers must not allow Secure Boot to be disabled", this is completely non-understandable to a "normal person", even someone with average computer skills will find that very hard to understand. --Jerebin (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for giving some reasoning behind the decision to include this quote. I think it does make sense to include a quote which explains things more clearly. I have a deep understanding of the implications of secure boot, and I recognize that the edit summary I used was, at best, an over-simplification of the issue. The real reason that I removed the quote is because I thought the statement that they are useless as general computing devices could lead some readers to believe secure boot somehow takes away from the usefulness of windows 8 itself. However, this may have been a misjudgement. Millermk90 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point. I know that quote could be a bit "strongly worded" and going a bit far as calling them "useless". Another quote could be "The concern here, of course, is that Microsoft's approach seems to be making it hard if not impossible to install GNU/Linux on hardware systems certified for Windows 8.", from my POV this one has the disadvantage of being Linux-specific. There are also probably quotes by the FSF, but from my POV that is not really appropriate as the FSF is generally anti-Windows and Anti-Microsoft. --Jerebin (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another one: "It appears that Microsoft may block the installation of Linux and other operating systems on ARM-based Windows 8 devices" --Jerebin (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I have three main problems with this quote, which is why I removed it again:

• It's a comment from a blogger who is known to be extremely biased and nonobjective because he is militantly anti-Microsoft / militantly anti-anything that is not open source. As such, it it is not a reliable source.
• As pointed out, it doesn't really add anything that more reliable sources haven't already said.
• More than anything else, it seems like a thinly veiled attempt to drive traffic to OSNews. And that's inappropriate. Tuxyonp (talk) 01:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove sourced material without proper discussion or WP:CONSENSUS. Your comment that Thom Holwerda, the main editor of OSNews is "militantly anti-Microsoft / militantly anti-anything that is not open source." is not backed by anything, neither logic nor quotes, nor references. In fact, if we analyze his text we can make a very very different conclusion. Lets look at his blog, http://cogscanthink.blogsome.com/ (linked from his OSNews profile here)

He has a Microsoft category! Lets see what is in there...

• His first post (in that category) is titled Office 12 looks neat, with sentences like "Office 12 is really starting to look neat. Microsoft has completely revamped the interface from the ground up– for the better." "Especially Outlook 12 looks extremely clean" ending with "All this is really starting to make me excited about Vista and Office 12. I think I’ll be buying a new x86 when Vista comes out– I think the cost will be justified. MS really seems to be putting a lot of effort into all this. " - Nothing but praise!

• His next post is again about Office 12, saying "If Microsoft is putting as much thought into Vista as they’ve been putting in the new Office 12 UI, than the competition is screwed. Seriously screwed."

• "Reality distortion field" - he defends Microsoft, concluding "I’m sorry David, but by reading your article I have only come to one conclusion: you are an obvious pro-Apple, anti-MS troll."

• Aero will run fine - He says "I’m putting this video up as proof for each and every one to see that FUD has been making its rounds around the internet against Microsoft, instead of by Microsoft ;)" - Sure, he takes an indirect and ironic "stab" at Microsoft, but the article, if anything, is pro-microsoft.

• Replace one inferior product with another - he states "An article at CoolTechZone (I never liked that Fisher Price name) glorifies the iPod and states that Microsoft will never be able to crush it. How wrong they are", again, if anything, this is pro-microsoft, certainly not anti-microsoft.

• That’s even 1% as good "OpenOffice.org is a steaming pile of shit. It is so utterly, utterly, utterly evil, I’d rather eat my own hair instead of having to rely on this buggy piece of crap software. Anyone saying OpenOffice.org is anywhere even near Microsoft Office in whatever measure, has simply never used OpenOffice.org for longer than 7 seconds" - I think just this quote completely kills your argument that Thom is "militantly anti-anything that is not open source"

• I’m a minidisc guy "After seeing the interface that will come with the Zune in action, I actually was pleasantly surprised [...] the Zune has a few advantages over the iPod:" - Again, Pro-Microsoft, if anything

• Stop spreading lies about the removed features - While he criticizes some features of Vista (objectively), the post is mainly about "correcting" negative information about Vista "being spread".

• It’s so simple and to the point - "Seriously. Apple’s marketing departement could learn a thing or two from the current Vista campaign Microsoft has launched. [...] It’s brilliant because it’s so simple and to the point. It appeals to a basic emotion, and instantly makes clear why you should try Vista: it will ‘wow’ you."

Sure, he dislikes software patents, expresses frustration about EU money spent regulating MS, expresses dislike for companies in general and criticizes IE7, but nothing there suggests he his "militantly anti-Microsoft" neither "anti-microsoft". I could go on, but I think this is enough... It should also be noted this is from his personal blog, where he could simply express his hate/dislike for Microsoft, if he had any (He certainly has no problem using offensive words directed at people). In addition to that, even if he was indeed "Anti-Microsoft", (and he isn't) his opinions would not be less truthful. Regarding OSnews in particular, the website is widely considered a WP:reliable source, used in over 200 wikipedia articles as a source and has been referenced by TIME, Ars Technica, Wired, ComputerWorld, LifeHacker, Linux.com, among others... (sources in the Osnews article). In addition to this, even if we assume Thom Holwerda is "biased", his views regarding secure boot are not a "minority view" nor a "fringe theory" as described in WP:NPOV and are backed by the "mainstream tech media", therefore we are not giving them WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Wired describes the website as "an alternative operating system Web magazine" [1], it makes perfect sense for this type of magazine/organization to discuss the fears of not being able to have alternative system on Windows-certified ARM PCs, this has NOTHING do do with being "Anti-Microsoft". As pointed out, the quote is relevant because is expresses a view regarding secure boot expressed in reliable sources, from a publication specialized in OSes. Regarding "More than anything else, it seems like a thinly veiled attempt to drive traffic to OSNews. And that's inappropriate", that is simply unsupported by anything and just seems, as they say in my country, "Just throwing mud at the wall and see what sticks..." --SF007 (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The fact that he actively encouraged Anonymous to hack Microsoft once doesn't make him anti-Microsoft? After he took a story about some Android phone vendors licensing patents from Microsoft and blew it way out of proportion with the sensationalist (and inaccurate) headline "Microsoft's Extortion Campaign Against Android"? When you are actively encouraging a hacking group to go after a certain company, I'd say that pretty much means you are out to get that company. Also, you mention WP:NPOV, but this article is clearly NOT written from from a neutral point of view. All the content on secure boot is negative and basically portrays it as if it spells the end of the world for Linux on ARM. Of course, this is absolutely not true. I don't know how anyone can sit here and claim this article is written from a neutral point of view. It's clearly not. In fact, I think a neutrality dispute should be raised about it. Tuxyonp (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Linking to Windows XP/Vista/7?

Just wanting to know if we should link to Windows XP/Vista/7 on the "See also" section, is it useful? necessary? Why should we link to them? Would a simple link to Microsoft Windows do a good job? Not trying to get that removed, just wanted to hear some reasoning behind the links... --SF007 (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, Windows 7 is already wikilinked in the infobox, the lede, and the {{Template:Microsoft Windows family}} right below the "See Also" section. WP:SEEALSO does say that See Also sections "should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." XP and Vista are similarly linked in the template (which is a "navigation box"), seemingly precluding the use of these wikilinks in the See Also section. I think they're redundant there, and don't really need to be there. - SudoGhost 03:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Secure Boot & Firmware

A salient point missing from the secure boot section would be firmware / driver restrictions. These are hardware-dependant and OS-specific. In the case of Linux, many start-up drivers are made by open-source volunteer organizations that find difficulty in getting their drivers signed off by OEMs. This is compounded by the frequent rolling-update approach taken by some of these organizations may require each update to be signed.

It could mean that while Linux may well run, few of their drivers will.

Does it matter? Why can't I just buy non-Microsoft certified ARM products? Because I'm a Windows guy, and I use many of Microsoft's products. I've owned every Windows OS since 3.1, and enough Microsoft Office products to staff a small IT firm. But at the end of their life-cycle, they simple cannot run newer Windows OSes. I convert my old PCs into Linux servers or HTPCs. I connected some of my old PCs to old printers, to get LAN-shared printers. Planning to see if I can get some discarded smartphones to make impromptu CCTV with an old Dell laptop.

Why should I be punished for my loyalty to Microsoft? I understand there are benefits to Secure Boot, and am keen to use it, but secure boot has been made to stifle competition rather than promote flexibility & security.Bunston (talk) 04:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• While this talk page is not a forum, I think the concerns are valid to at least some extent, and like you I'm a Windows loyalist.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Support for 128-bit applications in Windows 8

In the early indruction of Windows 8,I was heard that Windows 8 will support 32,64 and 128-bit systems,but since Deveplover Preview,the 128-bit support was removed. What was happened (or there is maybe a chance for 128-bit support in the final version)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.44.125.181 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Not a chance, given the difficulty and lack of need of making something 128-bit.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sneaking in the pro-Linux FUD again

The sections "Secure boot 3.1 Effects on the use of other operating systems" have crept into the article again. As discussed at length below, this entire section has crept again into the article.

The entire issue is an agenda-smear by a competitor. OEM manufacturers are welcome to allow UEFI to be turned off. Other OSes can supply keys as **they** (including Linux Sellers or others) see fit. UEFI support in W8 has nothing to do with linux.

The entire section is a NPOV creep by agenda driven edits. Ridiculous.

I don't have the time or patience to monitor this article and fight against the rabid fanboys looking to use Wikipedia as a FUD-production tool. Sad, very very sad. It was agreed that the former state (which was lest incendiary, brief and neutral) was **too much** coverage in the "W8 may prevent other OS from being installed" discussion below. yet here it is, even worse now.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.123.169 (talk) 22:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a fellow Windows fan, and I can hardly agree with you. No, it has everything to do with Linux, especially since many distributions have no support for EFI and manufacturers may simply shut it off.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Having no support for EFI is hardly the fault of Microsoft. pcuser42 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, what's happening is that it's Microsoft's fault for starting the UEFI thing; the idea is that the whole Linux community shouldn't have to adapt for just Microsoft's change.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Pcuser42 and it is not notable enough to deserve a section in Windows 8 article. This can be mentioned and explained in detail in linux related articles, but here I think just a sentence worth of mention with wiki link to the appropriate section in linux article should be the way to solve it. Abhishikt (talk) 23:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

All these things are true, and reason that this should not have any coverage here except to satisfy the linux-fan agenda;

A) MS has no control over how UEFI accepts certs from competitor OSs (Linux or otherwise).

B) MS has not made UEFI mandatory for W8 and all W8 hardware. Only those which (voluntarily) choose to certify.

C) UEFI can be turned off.

D) Hardware without UEFI can run W8. People wishing to use other OSs should buy such hardware.

E) For 95%+ of world wide computer users, the need to install other OSs is not relevant, it is simply off-topic here.

The length and tone of the current "coverage" is vastly too much weight. It is a smear by a competitor that has been completely debunked. It has no place here at all.

At one time (see the conversations above) this matter was resolved. Now, after some time, the same smear and slime has crept back in. Wikipedia is supposed to be ojective. And clearly, in this topic, on this page, their is no _valid_ reason to give air to this. It's a anti-MS agenda that includes it here. No more. No less.

Here we go: A: Having control over how it happens doesn't matter, reliable sources show that Windows 8 using UEFI was the catalyst, any level of control is irrelevant. B, C, and D: Sweet! Except, having a solution to something does not mean that it negates the fact that reliable sources give it weight. E: That's your opinion, reliable sources seem to think otherwise, I'm inclined to give their opinion more weight. I'm not saying the section shouldn't be trimmed a bit, but to remove it outright is not an option, reliable sources dictate that for us. - SudoGhost 19:52, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Having reliable sources doesn't mean the topic is notable and should be detailed in the manner it is now. I would like to suggest seeing the number of Win8 reviews posted by reliable sources which does NOT even mention secure boot's effect on other OSes. That sort of proves that we are completely giving unnecessarily extra weight to this topic. I'm strongly against having a section the way it is now. I'm more agreeing with Jerebin. And as I have suggested earlier, we can put one sentence max on this. Then we can put all the details we want in Linux article and have a link to it. Does anyone have any objections? Abhishikt (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely disagree with this. Reliable sources link this "controversy" with Windows 8, not with Linux. Linux is used as an example, and is the most commonly given example, but reliable sources discuss it as being involved with Windows 8, and we cannot dismiss that or remove it from the article when reliable sources link it in this way to this article. I'm also in disagreement with the "one sentence max" comment. The sheer number and prominence of the reliable sources that have discussed this in relation to Windows 8 gives much more weight than what could be expressed in a single sentence.

The number of sources that have no mention of this is irrelevant, that is not how weight is determined. It is not an instance of "something must be mentioned in at least 40% of reliable sources to be notable or WP:DUE", and to assume that because a given reliable source does not mention it in a given instance means that it is not an issue to that reliable source is WP:OR, because there are any number of reasons a source would not discuss any given thing, (they've already discussed it, it is out of the scope of what is specifically being reviewed in that review, etc.) therefore lack of mention in some sources does not negate it being discussed in others. If the sources had a passing mention, a single sentence or two then I would agree that a single sentence would be sufficient, but there are quite a few prominent reliable sources (including Microsoft itself) that not only discuss this in great detail but quite clearly link it to Windows 8, making it relevant and giving it sufficient weight for a small section in the article. - SudoGhost 22:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

However, I do think that the quote that was attached to the section was unnecessary, gave the reader no additional insight, and ultimately served no beneficial purpose to the article. I see it has been removed, and I do support this removal. - SudoGhost 05:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the section and I think that the third paragraph can be removed completely. The paragraph appears to just be selected quotes of the opinions of editors at ZDnet, computerworld, and so on. I'm going to go ahead and remove it, and possibly the second paragraph as well. Unless there's a third-party source that has commented on Canonical's statement, it probably isn't notable enough to mention here. - SudoGhost 01:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I strongly disagree. They are "opinions" presented in WP:reliable sources and based on factual information. It could be argued they are given WP:undue weight, but they represent the views of the "mainstream tech media", so it's not giving undue weight to Linux-advocacy groups or similar organizations ("minority opinions/views"). Please also note ArbCom considers that "It disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand." I dare to say the section about "opinions" clearly fits this description: we are describing particular views (which are "mainstream" and shared by many "mainstream" authors), published in reliable sources and attributing them to the authors (eg. not presenting them as unquestionable facts). The material is also obviously relevant and pertains to Windows 8. It is as much neutral as we can get. The WP:NPOV policy also states "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."--SF007 (talk) 02:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The ArbCom thing is irrelevant here, as that case was about wholesale removal of sourced information, not balancing WP:WEIGHT. ArbCom does not say "any reliable source can and must be used as a WP:QUOTEFARM without regard to WP:WEIGHT, and cannot be removed." In regards to the NPOV, the part you did not boldface, as far as possible without bias, seems equally relevant here. The first paragraph in the "Effects on the use of other operating systems" section sufficiently provides the information relevant to this, and does so in a balanced, neutral, and factual way. The quotes below it, however, do not. They are speculation or "hypotheses" and are biased, however justifiably. There absolutely nothing is gained by having those quotes; no additional information or insight is provided, therefore they are marginally useful at best in this article. With this in mind, in addition to the concerns of bias and "FUD" introduced by these quotes, NPOV would suggest that these quotes do not belong, as they do not "represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." To do this as far as possible without bias would be to remove the opinions, however well sourced, and stick with the factual information. This would keep the article balanced, neutral, and proportional. - SudoGhost 03:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Secure Boot position

[2] Did Microsoft say that Windows 8 would be the only acceptable signature?Jasper Deng (talk) 06:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, how could they say "Windows 8 would be the only acceptable signature". Windows is not a signature. Of course, that is probably not what you meant, and you are questioning my edits. Well, let's see... Microsoft said:

• "We believe it is important to support this flexibility to the OEMs and to allow our customers to decide how they want to manage their systems."
• "the customer is in control of their PC. Microsoft’s philosophy is to provide customers with the best experience first, and allow them to make decisions themselves"
• "[...] we designed the firmware to allow the customer to disable secure boot. [...] OEMs are free to choose how to enable this support and can further customize the parameters"

So, from Microsoft own wording, we can easily and clearly conclude their are not interested in forcing OEMs into "locking users", and that is also (as expected) what the media concluded [3] [4] [5] [6]. Later there are reports Microsoft will require OEMs to not include an "off" button to disable secure boot on devices. [7] This clearly shows how they changed their position (or that they always had this position, but initially lied). If we needed backing by the media, OSnews clearly puts it black on white "It turns out Microsoft has been lying to us all this time" and "the company has amended its Windows Hardware Certification Requirements" and Glyn Moody saying "The document was published some time after Microsoft's post where it states "Microsoft does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows", and yet it seems to contradict it.", The Verge also makes it clear "The requirements contradict Microsoft's previous statement that the company "does not mandate or control the settings on PC firmware that control or enable secured boot from any operating system other than Windows." - Adam Santini. --2.80.214.44 (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

By writing "however, In January 2012, the company reverted their position" following "Microsoft addressed the issue in a blog post, stating that the manufacturer is free to choose which signatures are accepted by the feature", you're indicating that Microsoft's position on allowing the manufacturer to choose signatures is what was reverted. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point! You are right! It could mislead readers. I have now removed "however" and similar words. However, I still think it would be relevant to indicate the contradiction. - Adam Santini --82.155.50.93 (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I have re-added the sentence, corrected so it only states they reversed their position about the users having control. I don't think this is a mere "interpretation", as it is quite clear when we read their statements. Either way, that is what the reliable sources say, as explained above. Adam Santini. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.219.31 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute on Secure Boot Section

The secure boot section is written from an overwhelmingly negative point of view. None of the benefits of secure boot (such protection against MBR viruses) are mentioned at all. Instead, the section focuses entirely on the problems that secure boot creates for other operating systems and the idea that Microsoft is trying to lock other operating systems out of the ARM market (which is speculation and nothing more). Tuxyonp (talk) 04:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to add these benefits to the Secure Boot section, to "even out" this focus. - SudoGhost 04:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to "even out" the coverage as soon as I found reliable sources. Suffice it to say there are benefits to secure boot. Also, keep in mind that for ARM systems, inability to disable secure boot is only required for certification--if OEMs want to display the "Designed for Windows 8" logo on their system. Certification is NOT required for vendors to pre-load Windows 8. They just won't be able to display the "Designed for Windows 8" logo if they don't certify. Some vendors will choose not to certify some systems in order to give customers the flexibility of running alternative OSes. Again, this is why i think a lot of these so called "reliable sources" are running around like Chicken Little claiming the sky is falling right now. The reality is, it simply isn't. If you want to run Linux on your ARM device, don't buy one that is "Designed for Windows 8". Seems simple enough, right? And besides, doesn't Apple already do this to a far worse extent than Microsoft? Apple has long tried (but failed) to prevent people from running anything other than iOS on their iPad. But for some reason, Apple gets a free pass. But everyone demonizes Microsoft. Tuxyonp (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tuxyonp, this section is completely written with negative POV. Earlier I had suggested to put these details (effects of secure boot on linux) in the linux article, that where the details belong. This article is about Win8, so these extensivly long details doesn't belong here. Abhishikt (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on the Linux article, the subject is Windows 8 and secure boot, Linux is just the most commonly given example as an alternate OS. - SudoGhost 02:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with SudoGhost on that matter, I personally believe the section should be cut in half or even in three.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to cut it down to only the first paragraph, but that was quickly reverted. I don't think the section needs a WP:QUOTEFARM, and I don't think these quotes add anything to the article or give any additional insight. I do think that if only the first paragraph remained, that would help fix the concerns of "FUD". - SudoGhost 03:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)ot eve

Some of the quotes are not even from legitimate authorities on the topic. In fact, most of them comes from blogs, which to my understanding, is against Wikipedia policy. The quotes from ZDNet, for example, are from ZDNet blogs for the most part. And a blog is still a blog, even if it happens to have ZDNet's logo on it. It is not peer reviewed for accuracy, has had no technical editing, etc. Therefore, it's not legitimate reliable and authoritative source. To me, that makes it a fallacious appeal to authority, which means the quotes should be removed. Tuxyonp (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hardware requirements section needs expansion

Microsoft lays out Window 8 tablet hardware requirements

Windows 8 tablets will have to meet some minimum guidelines, according to specifications published by Microsoft

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-57360734-64/microsoft-lays-out-window-8-tablet-hardware-requirements/ Abhishikt (talk) 07:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have expanded this section to include h/w requirements for tablets/convertibles. Also moved the secure boot section over here, as it part of hardware requirements. Abhishikt (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Development of Windows 8

With Windows 8 nearly done and without leaks appearing like they did with Windows 7, surely a section "Development of Windows 8" would be now ideal as their is now enough information to be folded into one section on the main page and the individual leaks etc on the development page- similar to that of Windows 7. Again, just an idea and I understand the thinking of not doing it before the product is finished but I just think the main article will look tidier and more organized. -BenBen1234 (talk • contribs) 16:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the build history basically is about development...--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree but I just think that the main Wikipedia page should be like Windows 7 and give on overview (announcements, BUILD and the developer preview and then the consumer preview and then the development of Windows 8 like the section it is now but with possibly extra information... --BenBen1234 talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC).

In the Early announcements section, I added a 'Citation needed' tag to the statement 'Windows 8 development started before Windows 7 had shipped' (not because I doubt the veracity of the statement, I just think a citation would be helpful at this point). 81.164.152.54 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Deleted x86 specification of microprocessors

There is no need for this information, if information is given, the fact that it supports x86 and x64 and Intel's itanium series microprocessors. Information is practically useless as a whole, and basically a lie as just "x86". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.240.142 (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 to ship without DVD and Blu-Ray video support

1. Is there a section or article that lists missing features in Windows 8 (i.e. compared to Windows 7)? • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Someone please add text about this news: To cut licensing costs, Windows 8 will ship without support for DVD and Blu-Ray video playback. To enable it, you have to buy Windows Media Center or third party solution. http://www.osnews.com/story/25910/Windows_8_to_ship_without_DVD_Blu-ray_support • Sbmeirow • Talk • 00:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

1. There should be a section or Features removed from Windows 8.
2. This particular text won't work, because OSNews is not a reliable source and "you have to buy" does not conform with WP:MOS (specifically, no "you have" or "you can" statements are allowed in articles). I'll try to add something else if needed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I didn't specially mean that exact text, but I do see it in List of features removed in Windows 8. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 01:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It probably should not need more than that; I'm going to make a redirect since I wasn't totally aware of that article. I probably should work on reconstructing that article in a non-copyvio manner.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many references in Secure boot section

There are too many references in the secure boot section and many of which talk about the same thing 116.202.91.114 (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

thanks fixing now :)Greg Heffley 23:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Competition section

If we're going to write such a section, at least we can give proper weight, not speculate, avoid flattery, be specific, and use only verifiable sentences. The section I just took out does not meet that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the section didn't belong in this article at all, at least not as written. The first ref is comparing Windows 8 and Ubuntu's features in an article via ZDNet's Linux and Open Source blog. All that really verifies is that Ubuntu was compared to Windows 8 in an opinion piece on a major site. It certainly doesn't verify that Ubuntu "is now competing head-to-head with Windows and Mac OS" (I didn't see anything close to that claim in the article). The next ref is a user submitted post that directs to the submitter's blog. That's not much of a reliable source.

The second paragraph has another ZDNet article from the same Linux and Open Source blog and the same author. However, the problem is that what the source actually says isn't anything like the information it was being used to support, quite the opposite in fact. It was supporting "Windows will not only face increased competition from Ubuntu on new computers and other devices,". What that article actually says is "I don’t see a lot of room for Ubuntu on smartphones or tablets." Maybe there are refs that could make such information WP:DUE and warrant some mention in this article, but these aren't it. - SudoGhost 23:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good summary, SudoGhost. I concur as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Adobe Flash Player in Metro-style Internet Explorer 10 is not a "limited version" according to IEBlog

Resolved

 – I cannot find this in the article so I assume that someone has already fixed it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The post can be seen here which says "The Flash Player included with Windows 8 is based on the full PC implementation and not a limited mobile subset".Sky6t (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Promotional upgrades section

Upgrading had been included as a mere paragraph in section 4, "Software Compatibility." With all the rumors, and then rumor confirmations and announcements since mid-May -- leading to the big one, today, about the $40 downloadable upgrade -- it seemed to me that this important subject should be well-covered and in its own section; and so it's now section 5, with appropriate sub-sections and lots of details of the sort that I figured most users would want to know. It will, obviously, all have to be changed to past-tense once the promotions end in January 2013 (don't worry, I've already set an alarm in my calendar for it); and when Microsoft finally announces what will be the long-term, permanent upgrade prices that will kick-in after the promotions, such will need to be added, too. In fact, once Microsoft announces the long-term upgrade pricing, I was thinking about changing the section to just "Upgrading from previous versions," and then the promotions will just become a sub-section... er... I mean... you know... unless anyone has objections. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 23:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, it should probably stay like it is 'til after the promos expire at the end of January 2013, with long-term pricing simply added (whenever it's finally available) where it now says "In none of Microsoft's announcements..." until then; and then after the promotions end, maybe change the whole section to "Upgrading from previous versions" with all the promo stuff becoming historical, therein. Sub-sectioning, at that point, would obviously need to be changed around a bit, too. How's that sound? Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 23:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deselms (talk • contribs)

Upgrade offers

I do not believe we need such a large section on them. In particular I'm concerned about WP:NOPRICES.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with you User talk:Jasper Deng all the information given in upgrade offers section is too long and should be written in more concise way.Currently important sections like the editions and the logo section are a bit too down because of a upgrade offers section. I think the way its written looks like a promo for the references.

116.202.75.123 (talk) 18:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Holy sh*t, I'd cut about a third-to-half of this section. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'd say most of the content in that section before the big bold "$69.99(US) retail upgrade on DVD..." could be removed which would trim that section in half (or almost). TheSameGuy (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Also seems to be a lot of repetition. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've boldly cut down the section to a fraction of its former size. In the future we must write these encyclopedia-, not blog-style.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

This article does not include a criticism section. Untill it does, it reads like an advertisment by Microsoft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noam33 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific as to where and why the article reads like an advertisment? - Meewam (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of a criticism section when the product isn't even released yet? VividNinjaScar (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not read as an advetisment. The article is essentially a list of straightforward techinal facts about Windows 8, wrapped in prose. If by advertisment you mean deliberate use of peacock terms, that could easily be edited out, and still wouldn't call for a criticism section. - Meewam (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can link to a reliable source giving critisisms that apply to features (NOT BUGS), then it will be considered for inclusion. Until then, nothing of note is applicable to this article. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 15:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If/when reliably sourced criticism of Windows 8 occurs, I think it should be integrated into the appropriate sections instead of sandboxed into its own section. - SudoGhost 06:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I like your policy of integrating criticism into the article. Also, I posted this in a different section, but I want to make sure everyone who wants a criticism section sees it.

A "criticism" section has inherent bias because it provides a dumping ground for negative points of view. It is much more neutral to provide a "reception" section that allows for the generally agreed upon reaction to a product to be represented. The reception section should be representative of the overall reaction, which means that in the case of Windows 8, I think would contain a lot of positive and negative response. Secondly, the product is not released yet, so I think we should hold off on the reception section until it is. Yes we feel like we "know" what this product is, but the truth is, Microsoft could release Windows 8 with a drastically different look and feel to the previews. Would this be incredibly foolish on their part? Yes, but until we have the product in our hands, we don't know what it is and shouldn't critique it. This is the page for the Windows 8 operating system. Not the Windows 8 Consumer Preview. Captain Stack (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the point of introducting a reception/criticism section anyway? Does it add any value the article that [random tech site edtior] believes this or that? It's very POV and always will be. And I don't think Wikipedia deserves to become a battleground for tech fanbois, agressively sprinkling ther sh*t in diverse articles because they think Wikipedia is The Truth™ or some extension of the comments section of some [random tech site name], adding tons of cites to all sorts of unreliable blogs to their edits, because they think it'll make an opinion even more "right." Opinions are fine but also very subjective and volatile: they change over time. And while subjects about litterature, arts, history etc. have their experts on the subject in question, it's a bit different in tech which -to me- seems more religious than fact based. Meewam (talk) 14:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Sudoghost; criticism is best integrated into the article with reliable third party sources. A tech product article doesn't have to have a criticism section, but with a highly notable product such as this, it's inevitable that there will be some criticism/accolades in reliable third party sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to read this discussion as consemsus for the integration of reliable criticism as it becomes available, after the release of the product. Until then I see no reason for an NPOV tag on the article, unless more specific concerns are raised (I don't think that the lack of a criticism section inherently implies a lack of NPOV). By saying this I don't mean to dismis any claims that the article may need some work in order to be neutral, merely that specific issues need to be raised in order to warrant a notice on the article. Millermk (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added in this section with relevant criticism from notable persons (not a "random tech site editors"), using verifiable and properly formatted sources. Feel free to expand it with relevant information or merge it into "Reception" section in future. You can also remove it, of course, though I see no good reason to do that - after all, these criticism articles from those persons are being discussed in many places on the web and other OS articles already have similar "Reception" sections... Rndomuser (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with Gabe Newell being used as a source for criticism. Seeing as how the Windows Store would be a content provider that would eat into Steam's profits, he's got a bit of a financial incintive to "criticize" Windows 8 here. That's not a neutral analysis of Windows 8 so much as a digital platform provider not liking the idea of competiton from a digital platform provider that's integrated into an OS. - SudoGhost 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Stardock ref has the same situation, they also have their own digital distribution platform called Impulse. - SudoGhost 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how Windows Store will provide any major competition to Steam - it's always up to game developer to decide through which content distribution platform to release their games. For example, if Valve themselves (or a third-party developer who prefers to work with Valve) decide to release their own game only through Steam, how can Windows Store have ANY financial impact on Valve? Who can FORCE other developers to use Windows Store instead? Same goes for other companies, especially Blizzard, who always distribute their own games through own content distribution and has no interest whatsoever for distributing 3rd-party content. Plus you are probably not aware, but PC gamers could purchase and download content using Microsoft's own "Games for Windows Marketplace" or "Windows games on demand" (or whatever it's current name is, since it was often changed - here's a current link to this service: http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/PC/) content distribution service for a long time already, before Windows 8 was even announced, and such content providing method was never criticized by Gabe Newell, or by Blizzard's or Stardock's representatives, neither was the current OS, Windows 7, which allows people to do that. Also, if you would actually read the linked articles, most of these developers criticize the interface of the OS and other functions not related to content distribution method. So I'm sorry, but I disagree with your subjective opinion.Rndomuser (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you agree with this assessment, reliable sources do. The fact that third-party developers can publish where they wish is exactly the point. It's up to the game developer and the customers. Windows Store is a digital distribution platform that would compete with Steam and cut into their profits. The only difference is that it's integrated, you don't have to find a third-party source, it's already on your PC, that's the difference between Windows Store and Xbox Marketplace. Nobody "forces" people to publish OS X software, are you suggesting that OS X isn't a Windows competitor? - SudoGhost 06:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree that there are serious COI issues with this criticism section. I would also raise concerns about the legitimacy of using Brad Wardell as a source, considering that the source given notes that he "is president and CEO of Stardock ... the world's largest Windows desktop customization software provider with products like WindowBlinds, the Object Desktop suite, Object Dock, Fences and more." Shocking that a person who runs a company whose business is built on desktop customization doesn't like an OS which moves away from the desktop.

Further, and regardless of the sources, I see no point in a criticism section which boils down to a couple people not liking the OS for unspecified reasons. If there is a criticism section, shouldn't it explain what is (or is percieved to be) wrong with the product? I think that along with the concerns about neutrality of the other sources there is good reason for the removal of this section. If such a secton is to be included it should be a reception section which explains that lots of people really like Windows 8, and lots of people really hate it. Both viewpoints should be there. Millermk (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

...ok, if you truly believe that Gabe Newell is simply afraid of yet another digital content distribution competitor - please tell me why he never called the Electronic Art's "Origin" content distribution system (a real direct competitor to Steam) a "catastrophe" and instead simply said that if EA "wants to take their shot at building their own alternative to Steam, and if they're successful at that and their customers like that" then it's "great"(http://www.itproportal.com/2012/04/24/gabe-newell-smashes-eas-origin/). He also never said anything negative to another current competitor, Stardock's "Impulse"... And even if we assume that he is somehow concerned about Microsoft trying to artificially "lock out" the third-party digital content distribution services in Windows 8 (which is just an assumption at this point) - isn't it a valid point of concern, both from developer's point of view (who will have to abide to Microsoft's fixed fees for distributing content through Windows Store) and from consumer's point of view (since the final price of applications/games will directly be influenced by developer's distribution fees in Windows Store), regardless of who is initially expressing such concern? I think the point of concern that the Gabe Newell was trying to make is still valid and worth being mentioned here, since he and his company will NOT be only ones negatively affected by such thing if this (Microsoft artificially "coaxing" game developers into using only their own Windows Store) will actually happen... which again is just an assumption at this point, and Gabe Newell could as well be simply talking about general usability of Windows 8's "Metro" style interface - he does in fact talks about different software user interfaces in general in the original interview article, same as Stardock's representative. Also, as for a person above me mentioning that it's "Shocking that a person who runs a company whose business is built on desktop customization doesn't like an OS which moves away from the desktop" - there's no need for this out-of-place irony; Stardock can actually greatly benefit from Windows 8 "moving away from desktop" by creating and legally selling the software that will modify the Windows 8 "Metro" interface (as well as interface of other programs targeted towards "Metro" usage) to look and function in a more "classic" way, as it seems to be preferred by many current Windows 7/Windows XP users.Rndomuser (talk) 08:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not a bit of that matters, your speculation as to "why" and what companies "can do" doesn't affect the position of a conflict of interest in his comments. Reliable sources have noted this conflict of interest, so it's not simply my opinion. Your speculation as to why he would not comment about others but did about this one doesn't change this conflict of interest. He said something negative about Windows 8, which has a distribution platform that will compete with Steam. You said so yourself, they would be "negatively affected" by it. This is a conflict of interest, not an impartial analysis. - SudoGhost 08:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

That's an extremely one-sided view on looking at things... Basically the exactly the same criticism would be more "valid" coming from a random person not working for a company related to digital content distribution service than the Gabe Newell's and Brad Wardell's criticism? Does the same apply to Blizzard, who have no competing (with Microsoft) digital content distribution service? Or because they are also a "game developer" who potentially does not want to pay extra fees associated with Windows Store they are also "disqualified" as a non-biased source? Can ANY person express such critique, considering that even the regular consumer might have a "hidden" interest in seeing Windows Store not financially succeeding due to various reasons (such as personal preference towards Steam usage or heavy bias against any Microsoft product in general or against financial impact caused by potentially high fees that Windows Store will "force" onto game developers and which will be "passed" onto all consumers)? Does that mean this particular topic cannot be discussed at all? I'm really trying to understand the whole thing...Rndomuser (talk) 09:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Go back to what you said previously, about being "negatively affected". If a company is affected in such a way by a competitor, that company is not neutral when it says negative things about such a product. There will be plenty of criticism I'm sure about Windows 8 by many, many sources that are addressing it from an impartial standpoint, such as an actual review of the product. However, a competitor that stands to lose from a product's success is not a neutral source of criticism for that product. To create an entire criticism section based on this is WP:UNDUE. If there are actual criticisms from neutral reliable sources, those can and should be integrated into the article where relevant in an organic way, not sandboxed into an out-of-context section devoted to these negative aspects. - SudoGhost 09:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I still don't see the logical difference between such criticism from a company such as Valve who "might" be biased because they "might" lose more money and the same exact criticism from anyone else (like a simple consumer who likes to play games and who happened to work for some notable computer-related publication/magazine/newspaper/blog) who also might be actually equally biased (and you can never prove it otherwise) because that person might, in fact, be also "negatively affected" (in other words "paying more money") by Microsoft trying to decrease the competition for their Windows Store. Both criticism sources are equally valid to me, since regardless of the source this topic is absolutely relevant to my personal financial status (as a simple consumer who likes to play games, likes to not being locked into single game distributor and prefers to not overpay for games for no good reason)... But whatever. Let's keep this article looking like a Microsoft Ad if you are so adamant about "neutral" and "non-biased" criticism sources, because in case of this particular topic, there can't be any.Rndomuser (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand how an individual at a competing company that would stand to lose revenue based on a product wouldn't be in a conflict of interest when saying something negative about that product, and this "all or nothing" situation you're trying to present is a logical fallacy; these individuals are not neutral in this regard, that does not mean there cannot possibly be a neutral source. It would be the difference between a CEO of PepsiCo saying something negative about Coke, which would be a conflict of interest and a non-neutral position, compared to a journalist with editorial oversight, even though he "might" drink one of the two. One is paid to promote their company and product, the other is paid to give an impartial analysis. They are worlds apart in terms of neutrality. - SudoGhost 11:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Metro UI Criticism

Are there any good neutral articles that offer a balance of positive and negative criticism of the metro UI? There's a lot of opinions out there, it'd be nice to an aggregation of those views here. 86.10.28.52 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

If this gets added, I think there should be included at least some mention of user reaction in the form of workarounds to bypass Metro and go straight to Win8's built-in (but what Microsoft hopes will never be discovered) Win7-like desktop and "Start" button; and Microsoft's apparent attempts to thwart what's been done in that regard so far. Just a suggestion. Gregg L. DesElms (Username: Deselms) 23:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I have something to talk about, my opinion if it even matters to the mainstream consumer: Win8 is a Vista Patch #2. Metro is a joke. If I even try win8 to test it out on another partition it'll be just trying to tweak,hack,adjust,and wreck the shit out of it until i have it working like i want to, the classic XP feel and look, and top performance and advanced usability for extreme productivity, effectiveness and micro-management. Thank you and good bye. Xowets (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay things to note. A "criticism" section has inherent bias because it provides a dumping ground for negative points of view. It is much more neutral to provide a "reception" section that allows for the generally agreed upon reaction to a product to be represented. The reception section should be representative of the overall reaction, which means that in the case of Windows 8, I think would contain a lot of positive and negative response. Secondly, the product is not released yet, so I think we should hold off on the reception section until it is. Yes we feel like we "know" what this product is, but the truth is, Microsoft could release Windows 8 with a drastically different look and feel to the previews. Would this be incredibly foolish on their part? Yes, but until we have the product in our hands, we don't know what it is and shouldn't critique it. This is the page for the Windows 8 operating system. Not the Windows 8 Consumer Preview. Captain Stack (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe that a greatly expanded "Controversy" or "Controversies" section should be added. I will admit that I am biased against locked bootloaders (on anything - x86/amd64/arm, whatever), the Metro UI, the Start Page, the Windows Store, full-screen apps, and Metro apps exclusivity to the Windows store. But that is exactly why there should be a greatly-expanded controversies section, that discusses pros and cons of each of the controversial elements. Since education is part of the purpose of Wikipedia, there should definitely be mention of workarounds to the Metro UI and the Start screen. Specifically, the open-source project (on sourceforge) "Windows Classic Shell" should be mentioned, briefly described, and have a link to either a Wikipedia page on it, or the actual site on sourceforge. To me, terms like "upgrade" and the lack of detail on these controversies makes this article read like an advertisement for Microsoft Windows 8, which I think is a disservice to the public. 24.74.46.53 (talk) 15:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC) chriv - North Carolina 2012/08/01

In response to CaptainStack, the RTM has been leaked, so we do indeed know. And it does include all of the features that drew criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.14.99 (talk) 02:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 RTM release update

News:

http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/b/bloggingwindows/archive/2012/08/01/windows-8-has-reached-the-rtm-milestone.aspx

•August 15th: Developers will be able to download the final version of Windows 8 via your MSDN subscriptions.

•August 15th: IT professionals testing Windows 8 in organizations will be able to access the final version of Windows 8 through your TechNet subscriptions.

•August 16th: Customers with existing Microsoft Software Assurance for Windows will be able to download Windows 8 Enterprise edition through the Volume License Service Center (VLSC), allowing you to test, pilot and begin adopting Windows 8 Enterprise within your organization.

•August 16th: Microsoft Partner Network members will have access to Windows 8.

•August 20th: Microsoft Action Pack Providers (MAPS) receive access to Windows 8.

•September 1st: Volume License customers without Software Assurance will be able to purchase Windows 8 through Microsoft Volume License Resellers.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Nope, only the RTM itself can be in the infobox. This could go into the Release section, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference spamming

Some anonymous IPs keep replacing reliable refs with windows8consumer.in blog refs. This needs to stop.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about windows8consumer.in? Is it a reputable/respected blog? If not, we can have it blacklisted. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not reliable nor that well-known. Definitely not a good replacement for the already-cited soruces.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Me and another editor left warnings on the IP's talk page. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, he is back again and still trying to sneak his blog into the article. I've lost count of how many times he has done this, but it has to be at least a dozen times by now if not more. Any chance of just blacklisting his site? Warning him or blocking him doesn't work because he just keep posting it under new IP addresses. TheSameGuy (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Request filed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Already beat you to it. (Newer reports go at the bottom) - SudoGhost 04:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I visited the Windows 8 Wikipedia article today and found this on your talk page. First things first, let me make it clear that I or any other editor of windows8consumer.in never did any reference spam on this wiki article. As You have quoted that there were references for our website inserted in the wiki article, I don't deny that, but this was NOT AT ALL done by me or any other editor at windows8consumer.in.These reference spams were most probably done by the readers and viewers of our Blog.

I have a respect for the Wikipedia's principles,policies and rules.I think that Wikipedia has a policy that blogs are not considered as a reliable source for information. We just try to provide authentic information and news and I want to say that our website is a reliable source about Windows 8.

I hope All you editors will understand what I'm trying to say. Windows8consumer.in is not at any fault here and I simply cannot control the actions of people viewing my blog. I hope that this issue will be cleared and these messages will be removed, as all this has a negative impact on our website for no fault of ours. I hope you don't blacklist the website

With Respect - SHIVAM (Admin - windows8consumer.in)116.203.245.96 (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Either way, it was spammed. We weren't faulting you or any editors of your blog. As a reliable source, though, it definitely is not as reliable as official websites or other sites closer to the subject matter; we just can't take the vast majority of third-party blogs (usually except those by experts known to be trusted well on the subject).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the official websites must be the references for a product such as a OS and I'm not arguing about that. I just want to say that The spamming thing was not done by windows8consumer.in but probably by people who read our blog, and this discussion and blacklisting will probably have a negative impact on our website, Therefore I request you to remove this discussion as we are not at fault here.(Shivam)116.203.245.96 (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not exist to serve SEO interests - I know you're not at fault, but we cannot do either of those, it's policy here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not afraid about the SEO, as this discussion does not affects search engines but image of our website in the mind of a person who reads this. I don't think that this discussion has some kind of historical importance that it needs to be kept on this talk page. It just kind of attacks our website image for no fault of ours.(shivam)116.203.245.96 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

All discussions are considered to have historical importance (unless they're outright vandalism or WP:BLP violations), including this one. The vast majority of people who connect to Wikipedia won't see this because it's only editors that really use this talk page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

But still I request you to please move this discussion from here to some of your related archives, rather than keeping it on the main article's talk page as this is for admins and editors of Wikipedia.(shivam)2002:74CB:F560:0:0:0:74CB:F560 (talk) 23:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The talk page is for the admins and editors of Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Bad edits to avoid

Hi.

I noticed that some people (mostly IPs) contribute bad edits to the article; sometimes they do not seem fully aware of the consequences of their own actions. (Thanks to User:Jasper Deng and User:WikiHead who helped contain some of these damages.)

The most prevalent of these edits include:

1. Bad website address. Some people try strange variations like [[Windows 8|{{URL|windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/release-preview}}]], which gives a link that takes the reader nowhere. (See for your self: [http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/release-preview windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/release-preview]). Now, I searched around, and the general consensus is to have printer-friendly links in the infobox. The other variations like [windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/release-preview Official website] are unwanted because the printed version reads: "Website: Official website"
2. Repeating dates in infoboxes: Some people insist on including the date of release to manufacturing twice or thrice! Guys, I know you are excited about Windows 8 but once is really enough. Besides, first_release_date parameter is not supposed to contain multiple dates. It should only have the general availability release date.

Guys, please do not contribute such edits. Please test your edits in preview window or Wikipedia Sandbox before committing them.

The worst things about these edits is that some people has started edit warring over bad edits while those whom I contacted in their talk page regarding their edits disregarded me completely.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I fixed, Codename Lisa. Windows 8 will be download in official website in August 15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 09:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Not general availability, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Well, looks like 77.121.210.102 is blocked. So, I guess waiting for him to present a discussion is futile. In his last revert, his edit summary was a plea, asking me not to remove the RTM date. But I am not removing the RTM date! It is there, just one line below.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have cleaned up one of the recent edits for grammar, but I'll admit that my fix may not be perfect. --Wrldwzrd89^talk 16:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Windows 8 RTM download

Windows 8 now available to download for MSDN and TechNet subscribers.

News: http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/15/3243935/windows-8-download-msdn-technet-subscribers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 07:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We've got a problem.

Dear, Wikipedia, we've got a problem:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_8_Logo.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Windows_8_start_screen.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miros 0571 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• What's the problem? - SudoGhost 18:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Windows 8 logo had no TM and R. Windows 8 start screen has been reverted RTM to Release Preview by Jawadreventon.

Metro no longer exists

Metro no longer exists and never existed. The official name is now Modern UI. [8]--Racklever (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The reliable sources seem to contradict the "never existed" part, and it still seems to be what reliable sources are calling it, although that may change in the coming weeks. - SudoGhost 17:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It did exist but only as a code name it was never actually officially called Metro. Its similar to Windows Vista, before it was released it was codenamed called Long horn, the final release was a different name. --JetBlast (talk) 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

That's an interesting take, but not one that's reflected by reliable sources. Microsoft backtracking for whatever reason doesn't equate to "never existed", and Microsoft pages still refer to it as Metro, "officially". - SudoGhost 22:13, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I am having difficulty using the correct words to get my point across, but you know what i mean (I hope ha ha). Here is a source to show it was only a code name [9] --JetBlast (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

A Microsoft code name is an internally used name, not one plastered all over Microsoft public documentation, there's a big difference between the two. The only thing that the source you gave verifies is that Microsoft said Metro was the "code name for our design language", but this explanation of the Metro name was only given when, according to the source, the company had been threatened with legal action over its use of the name. That verifies that Microsoft said it, not that it's accurate. I've looked for reliable sources that said Metro was just a code name before the legal issue came up, and I couldn't find any. This "it was just a code name" thing is nothing more than Microsoft trying to avoid a lawsuit. - SudoGhost 23:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This Vista example goes against your explanation of Microsoft codenames. We have a source to say it was a codename. Do we have one to day it wasnt? --JetBlast (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't go against my explanation, how do you figure? The Longhorn codename was not publicly promoted as the name of the product, and used in publicaly available documentation and promotional material. Metro was, and was never explained as a code name until a lawsuit came into the picture. - SudoGhost 12:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no source that firmly says that merto was the final name of the feature. --JetBlast (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There's also no source that says "Windows 8" is the "final" name of the OS, because such a clarification isn't needed. Find a source anywhere that says Metro was a code name before the lawsuit issue came up. Unless that can be presented, it's your opinion against the weight of multiple reliable sources including Microsoft itself, although they're now saying otherwise in the interest of posturing to avoid a lawsuit. Not even reliable sources are buying Microsoft's sudden and unrealistic explanation. - SudoGhost 16:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

...and according to this source, "The folks in Redmond recently revealed that the term is off limits, at first claiming it was just a code name but then apparently fessing up that the dumping of Metro was due to legal reasons." So no, the "it was just a code name" explanation isn't accurate. - SudoGhost 16:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Racklever, I would not count much on The Register if were you. It is a tabloid and for most part unreliable. It always write sensational articles like this. Besides, Visual Studio 2012 now calls them Windows Store apps.

But our criterion of use is popular usage not being "official". Please study WP:COMMONNAME policy. Also Wikipedia:Official names is an essay.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Register and other tabloids differentiate between news articles, opinion articles and blogs. This is a news article so is a reliable source. Opinion articles and blogs are not reliable sources (this includes Microsoft blogs which people keep using). It is too early in the history of Windows 8 to talk about "commonnames". --Racklever (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Reliability of a source is not decided by its format (i.e. news or blog); it is decided by its authors, editors and contents. The Register has failed at three. It is a tabloid, a sensational journal that has a reputation for sacrificing factual accuracy in favor of sensationalism. (Of course, tabloid also means a journal of certain paper format, but you didn't think I meant that, did you?) The first sign that this article is doing the same is the phrase "It was never 'Metro'" which contradicts the article body itself.

Microsoft blogs are orders of magnitude more reliable than The Register because their only problem is their pro-Microsoft point of view – which can be dangerous to Wikipedia. (Note that Microsoft never had a reputation for lying; questionable competition tactics, yes, but not lying.)

That issue aside, time is not the only element that decides whether we use WP:COMMONNAME or not; Consensus is. See Talk:Metro (design language) § Requested move and you will discover that there is consensus in favor of "Metro".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources because it contradicts what you have stated. --Racklever (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Since I have read it and find it completely supportive of what I said, perhaps you should quote it. But again, you shouldn't bother; we have overwhelming consensus that "Metro" is WP:COMMONNAME. I think we are approaching the stage in which a silence on my part means "I respectfully disagree."

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The name "Metro" is not used at all in the final release and will never again be used by Microsoft for they were sued (or at least threatened to be) by Metro AG, if they continued using this name, which is protected by Metro AG. Maybe today people still use it incorrectly with reference to the UI, but we must not make the same mistake.

As a compromise I propose to begin with the information that Microsoft used the name "Metro" as codename for the new design. But that after being sued (or at least being threatened to be) they gave up "Metro" and instead gave it the name "Modern UI". Then continue to call it "Modern UI" through the article. This way the guys who think "Metro" should still be in the article, have that and at the same time we do not have the problem of always calling the UI by the wrong name. --88.130.100.179 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

No! Wikipedia is not Microsoft; even if Microsoft cannot use it, Wikipedia perfectly can, and will do so according to its WP:COMMONNAME policy. In addition, the legal dispute part needs a reliable source.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lisa,

where exactly have I argued that because Wikipedia is Microsoft Wikipedia has to use the new name? I never said that. :-) I said that Wikipedia must not make the mistake of incorrectly using the name "Metro" with reference to the new UI. Some people might do that, but that does not matter at all. Would you jump from the bridge just because some others do?

You have to accept that you are not the one to ultimately decide which terms Wikipedia will use. This is decided upon consensus and I guess you know that. Taking all arguments into account I currently do not see such a consensus here. ;-)

But there is a number of reasons not to be denied to stop using the old name and to use the new name "Modern UI" instead.

You are generally right with the assumption that WP should prefer to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources, no doubt. However, this is not valid without limitation. It is extremely one-sided to read WP:COMMONNAME in a sense that the decisive criterion would be popular usage alone. This is by no means true.

Using a wrong name is inaccurate and so as per WP:COMMONNAME to be ultimately avoided.

Finally WP:COMMONNAME clearly states that if a name changes, not the old name from before the change should be used. Instead more weight must be given to the new name used after the name change. And this name is not "Metro", it is "Modern".

So by far the better arguments in fact speak against picking the name "Metro" but for picking the new and accurate name "Modern". --88.130.100.179 (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Despite your initial sentence, the rest of your message shows that you perfectly know to what I said "No"! Now, I do not comment on the rest of your message except on the consensus part. You said you see no consensus. Its accuracy notwithstanding, the outcome of no consensus is no change. But I think you should look at Talk:Metro (design language) § Requested move and Talk:Metro (design language) § Move to Modern UI to see the consensus to retain the existing name.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Metro was used extensively in pre-release public presentations and discussions -- just as Longhorn was used in previews and development for years before Vista was affixed to Windows 6 just prior to releases. However, use of a codename in pre-release documents does not make that the intended product name. Such actual product names are decided at the last minute (typically 6-12 weeks before availability) for big splash effect. Its unlikely Metro was ever cosnidered for teh releasesd product.

On the other hand, it is quite likely that the French Metro company did send legal notice to MS and release that legal notice to industry bloggers just for the publicity. I doubt they expect MS to intentionally take their registered name to market.

However given the liberal nature of French civil courts in defending French companies and milking international companies for fines...yes MS is making special effort to make sure the term Metro is not used by any significant number of well-known sources by release time. Because French courts would indeed say that unofficial code names count if a product is referenced by significant numbers of customers -- regardless of official names. So if you want to shaft MS -- chat up to the term Metro vs windows 8 in as many well publicized blogs as possible. Just keep the the term alive. Make MS marketing have official names registered before they even start a product. Sort of pointless vendetta instead of about quality of products but it seems to be in the spirit of this discussion. 72.182.13.111 (talk) 07:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It's an interesting theory but not one supported by reliable sources, Wikipedia reflects what reliable sources say, not speculation. Metro was the name of the product, and is still in use by Microsoft. Also, the "it was a codename" thing isn't accurate: "The folks in Redmond recently revealed that the term is off limits, at first claiming it was just a code name but then apparently fessing up that the dumping of Metro was due to legal reasons." Find a single reliable source pre-"oh crap lawsuit" that says it was a code name, because I've looked and can't find one. - SudoGhost 14:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Did you even find the lawsuit itself? Everything seems to lead to Mary Jo Foley and her information must be taken with a grain of caution.

And by the way, "Metro AG" is German, not French.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell via reliable sources there isn't any lawsuit, but an unverified "legal threat" which caused Microsoft to scramble to change it. - SudoGhost 21:04, 5 September 2012 (UTC)