Talk:Windows 8/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I wanted to correct the grammar

I think that at the start of the article 'willing' should be changed to 'wishing'. I couldn't make the update as it's protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.178.133 (talk • contribs) 23:40 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure I have ever heard "wishing" in English. Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Done, although I used "who wish" instead as I think that sounds a bit better. I do agree that "willing" sounded a bit clumsy though. pcuser42 (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"They are be available only" might be better written as "They are only available" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.178.133 (talk • contribs) 23:45 5 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Codename Lisa (talk) 23:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Windows Store criticism

The single-point-of-distribution model is a fairly big step away from the traditional Windows ecosystem, yet this restriction microsoft have placed on 'Modern UI' apps is only mentioned in passing. It'd be nice to see this point fleshed out a bit more with a mention as to the kind of restrictions MS have put in place, and the 30% cut they take from all sales - as well as the early indications that the restrictions may be possible to circumvent by installing developer licences on end-user machines. PhonicUK (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I find the wikipedia statement about windows 8 only being able to run apps from the app store to be completely false. at least with earlier releases. I don't think Microsoft would release an OS where a user could only run or install apps from the Microsoft app store. this would be a complete lock on the market and they know users would not stand for it and Microsoft would be abandoned in a real hurry. people like applications on cdroms as a backup! or applications installable over a network, or applications installable from a hard drive, or from a usb stick/flash drive. I think the author needs to change his/her statement. Jmichae3 (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The restriction only applies to 'Modern UI ' apps, not to normal Windows applications. The criticism is that the Windows RT ARM edition for tablet computers will not run old Windows 7 applications so all sofware has to be obtained from the Windows store. This is the same as with the iPad and the Apple store.--Racklever (talk) 08:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

No section about the apps included with Windows?

How come there does not appear to be any section about the new Metro-styled/Modern UI-styled apps?

(Edit: I am talking about the apps by Microsoft that are included in Windows 8.)

I would imagine something similar to the following section, perhaps? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X_Mountain_Lion#New_and_changed_features In that section in that article, it lists the new applications and even provides a brief description of each one. But in the Windows 8 article, there does not appear to be even a basic list of the new apps??

Am I missing something? Is it in another article? Or is this considered "off-topic" or "not belonging to this article"??

Thanks in advance.

Niamer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

there is another article but there should be a section here too.Greg Heffley 19:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. There is already a section on this topic called "Windows Store". Only instead of "Metro-style app", it calls them "Windows Store app", another term that the confused Microsoft uses. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe he's referring to the specific apps included in Windows 8. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry if I was unclear in my original post. I am indeed talking about the Metro-styled apps (now known as "Windows Store apps") by Microsoft that are included in Windows 8. Niamer (talk)

Hi. Thanks for clarifications. I hope you do not mind my clarifying the title of the message, although you are welcome to change it back.

I believe this lack of availability of info is due to the relative limited availability of Windows 8. It is a five gigabytes download and is only usable by testers, not mainstream users. Over time, they will be added or will have articles of their own, which is the case with previous Windows apps like WordPad, Paint, Notepad, etc. When it happens, you can expect to find them on {{Microsoft Windows components}}. Mind you, they will be available when the Metro/Modern/Modern UI/Windows Store/Windows 8 app issue is resolved.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Media Center sold separately even in Pro?

Microsoft's updated their site, and I noticed something disturbing that may require an update. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-8/feature-packs Double Asterisk fine print at the bottom...

"** Windows 8 Media Center Pack is available at no charge for a limited time only through this promotional page on Windows.com. If you obtain Windows 8 Media Center Pack through any other location fees might apply. Offer valid from October 26, 2012, until January 31, 2013, and is limited to one product key per email address. You qualify for this promotion if your PC is running Windows 8 Pro. Additional hardware may be required to watch and record live TV. You must provide a valid email address to receive your Windows 8 Media Center Pack product key. Your product key must be activated no later than January 31, 2013. Microsoft will only contact you at the email address you provide to send you your product key and to remind you when the activation period for your product key is ending. Catalysis Corporation is a third-party company we use to collect subscription information and process the delivery of these emails. If you purchase a new PC with Windows 8 preinstalled and you later upgrade that PC with Windows 8 Pro Pack, Windows 8 Media Center Pack, a volume license edition, or a retail edition, you will no longer be able to install apps that are provided exclusively from your PC manufacturer through the Windows Store. Get the full details on our special offers."

So after some arbitrary period Microsoft is going to be charging separately for Media Center even if you own Pro? If remote desktop and some administrative features are all we get why would anyone buy Pro? Small Businesses will likely then buy regular and large will buy Enterprise and it will definitely increase the cost of media center systems OEM's build for clients depending on the add-on price, while I know that is irrelevant to wikipedia... just how much are they going to be charging? and will there be an MCE edition coming out if this is the case? --MundaneRaptor (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"Microsoft design language" may be the new official name for Metro (the design language) (from MSDN)

Hi all.

While "Metro-style app" appears to have found a new official name "Windows Store app", that's not the replacement name for the Metro design language. (thankfully... as that would have made it "Windows Store design language"...)

However, I believe I may have come across the "official" new name of the design language:

Microsoft design language

You can see it being used on the following pages from "Dev Center - Windows Store apps" on MSDN:

Make great Windows Store apps

Design case study: iPad to Windows Store app

Guidelines for typography

...and also on this MSDN page:

Roadmap for Windows Store apps using DirectX and C++

You will notice that on those pages, "Microsoft design language" is the new term for the design language (but not the apps). The first page also had 2 occurrences of "Microsoft design style" (likely a replacement for "Metro style"). Now, of course, I don't know how "official" this makes it. There are only a few instances/mentions of this new name, and also, I suppose it is entirely possible that those pages may change. Also, as often mentioned before, Microsoft apparently started to use "Modern UI" in a few places for a little while: [1] [2]

However, this is MSDN (as opposed to, say, a blog or the MS "Events" site), so I suppose this may be more "official" and may carry more weight?

In any case, at this point in time, at least on MSDN, it would appear that this is the new official name for the design language.

(This was a "re-post" of a post I made in the Metro (design language) talk page. Apologies for that. But this matter does concern the "Windows 8" article as well.)

Niamer (talk) 05:32, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

This doesn't agree with Paul Thurott's article, though.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Jasper Deng.

Yes, I've seen that article. You're referring to this part, right?

<<And this week, with Microsoft revealing (not for the first time) that the phrase “Metro-style” (as in “Metro-style app”) would be renamed “Windows Store” (as in “Windows Store app”), I hope we can finally put an end to this nonsense. As for the Metro interface, Microsoft is simply calling that Windows, because, in their words, “it’s just Windows.” Fair enough, I guess. Just stop calling it Modern, people. That was never going to be the name.>>

From his article (as well as some podcasts he's been in), I understand the following. The apps are now officially "Windows Store apps" not "Modern apps" nor "Modern UI apps". And additionally, the Metro interface or environment (the Start screen, the Charms on the right, the app switcher on the left, so on) is simply part of the Windows interface and has no name.

However, this doesn't say anything about the design language. Now, the following is just my opinion, but I really don't think that they're going to start calling the design language the "Windows Store design language". Calling the apps "Windows Store apps" is a bit odd but at least makes sense (mostly). But calling the design language "Windows Store" would make absolutely no sense, just as calling the Metro interface the "Windows Store interface" would make very little sense. (Again, this is just my opinion.)

So far, those MSDN pages are the only official mentions of the design language I have found.

Niamer (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Either way, the move to Modern UI (design language) was completely wrong.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Modern" or "Modern UI" appears to have been a temporary replacement (it was actually used by some Microsoft employees), but "Windows Store apps" is official now.

As for the design language, I found some additional evidence that supports "Microsoft design language" and "Microsoft design style".

I previously posted the link: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/hh464920.aspx Make great Windows Store apps

Now, I cannot find the old version of this page on Google, but I Google'd the text on the page and found another MSDN page with the exact same content as that page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/hh464920.aspx

It really is the exact same text. (A text diff confirms it.)

And the old version of this page is still there; it was cached by Google on 5 Sep 2012 08:48:04 GMT: the cached past version of http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/subscriptions/hh464920.aspx

Since Google will update its cached pages later, I took a screenshot (as of 2012 09 18) of the "before vs after": http://i.imgur.com/waGbq.png

You will see how the instances of "Metro" were replaced:

"Metro style apps" became "Windows Store apps".

"Metro design style" became "Microsoft design style".

"Metro design language" became "Microsoft design language".

Niamer (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

System requirements source

Hi.

It appears there is an edit dispute about whether the source specified in the article gives the system requirements for Windows 8 in general or only for Windows 8 Enterprise edition.

From one point of view, the source given, titled Download Windows 8 Enterprise Evaluation, only gives the system requirements for the Enterprise edition because it is about Enterprise edition. The rationale is that since the feature set of the Enterprise edition is different, therefore the system requirements should be different.

Now, from another point of view, the system requirements pertain to Windows 8 in general. The only rationale for this that comes to my mind is the fact that the word "Enterprise" does not appear near the list. But I think this is not a valid rationale because the word Enterprise has already appeared five times in the source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Well the evaluation is Windows 8 Enterprise, as for evaluation they only release it for one edition. If you look at the system requirements section it talks about Windows 7 & 8 in general and doesn't go into specifics. Do we have another source that is more clear to say that Enterprise edition has different system requirements? --JetBlast (talk) 12:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, the statement which you talk about is ambiguous; it might mean "Windows 8 runs on all hardware on which Windows 7 runs" or "Windows 8 runs on the following hardware on which Windows 7 runs". But the system requirements listed thereafter is higher than "all hardware on which Windows 7 runs". See Windows 7 § Hardware requirements.

As for other sources, I found this which is outdated and this which is— Is it system requirements? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

description of "fast and fluid" experience.

paragraph 3 lines 3&4 state that "a new platform for apps that can provide what developers described as a "fast and fluid" experience with emphasis on touchscreen input.[3]". The cited article only quotes Microsoft as saying "fast and fluid" (several times), in fact saying that "“Fast and fluid” is Microsoft’s catchphrase for how they want Windows 8 and its applications to work.". I feel that this quote should therefore be attributed to Microsoft, rather than to "developers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.14 (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

No criticisms section?

I think there should be a section/paragraph for "Criticisms of Windows 8". Things like secure boot & linux people against it. Then claims of MS not caring enough for desktop users and targeting more tablet market. Then gaming industry's bad view about it - Valve's Gabe Newell not liking it and making Valve concentrate on linux more, Minecraft crater refusing to sign Minecraft for Windows 8 hoping that people won't use the OS, even Blizzard saying something against it? Then Windows Store wall garden approach. Then criticisms of Microsoft tracking users from systemwide smartscreen feature, etc. Lot can be put on the Windows 8 page. It looks kinda empty and lacking hell lot of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.32.7 (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before. Anyway, I'm not sure why those gaming companies are complaining as Windows 8 performs better than Windows 7. pcuser42 (talk) 18:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It has been discussed before here. - SudoGhost 19:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 59.182.32.7

Per WP:TRIVIA, whenever possible, the criticism should be integrated into the text of the article itself. In addition, we need a reliable source for each of your entries.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong guideline. Wikipedia:Criticism is the relevant section. I'd personally have Criticism be a subsection of a Reception section, why you want to whitewash the obvious flaws in this operating system is beyond me. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm a strong opponent of Windows 8, but the current reception section is sufficient. Why do you think it's called "whitewashing"?--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ViperSnake151. Wikipedia:Criticism is only an essay, the opinion of a single editor who wrote it. But WP:TRIVIA is a guideline and is part of the Manual of Style. And, no, I am not wrong; you will find out if you read both. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The Trivia guideline does not mention "criticism", it only mentions miscellaneous information (like say, if a loose section had "UNNOTABLE PERSON took the default wallpaper, the Windows logo is now blue" in a list, that would be trivia). It also says that "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies." As long as we break them down into paragraphs detailing each aspect of criticism and present reliable counter-points. All of the criticisms of 8 have been widely, well, criticized by reliable sources. Windows Vista has a criticism section of this type (and yes, it did meet some notable critiques. And when I mean whitewashing, I mean that this article, except for the section regarding secure boot, mentions none of the criticism regarding 8. This violates WP:NPOV because it does not yet present all significant and reliable viewpoints. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does, please see the reception section. There is no premise to say that there's no criticism in this article, although we may want to add criticism as a sub-section of the reception section. I might also think it's premature; most of Windows Vista's criticism came after its general availability.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

Jasper, there is no reception section in this article.

ViperSnake151, a criticism section is usually miscellaneous. It entirely consists of unorganized fragments of criticism gathered from around. On rare occasions, you can find well-organized reception sections; well, since they are not purely criticism (potentially POV) and are not miscellaneous, they are okay.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not supposed to include criticism sections in any article. Any criticism (which is well-sourced and appropriate) should be integrated into the article text. Anyway, one could reasonably argue that Windows_8#Secure_boot is already unbalanced by devoting the majority of coverage to a WP:FRINGE (or at least tiny minority) viewpoint (Linux) . A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I couldn't agree more. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

So by your logic, because they are "usually miscellaneous", that means noting any notable issues are considered trivia? Again, Windows Vista has a criticism section and a criticism article, which by your logic are trivia that has to go. Part of Windows Vista's notabilty is because it did receive some negative reception, it was the Bane of its existance. What is with the inconsistent double-standard you are applying here? You are not showing any consensus for your interpretation of the guideline, and remember that you do not own this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, ViperSnake151

Windows Vista is not our subject of discussion and presence of other questionable stuff is not a good excuse for adding more. As for notability, it does not even apply here. There is no shortage of policy and guideline support in the previous messages of me and my friend that I don't think I need repeating them here. If, after reading them, you felt unconvinced, the solution is WP:DR.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Criticism sections are POV-pushing; criticism should be covered in the Reception section to maintain a neutral presentation. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Citation overkill?

Is it me, or does the "Secure boot" section have citation overkill? ~ihaveamac [t|c] 05:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

No it's not just you. pcuser42 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I do not see them as citation overkill. All sources, if reliable are welcome. Citations are opportunities for improvements and means of certainty. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It does look a bit like citation overkill. Statements do not need four or five references supporting each sentence, I think it should be no more than three, preferably two. - SudoGhost 20:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like ViperSnake151 removed some citations, and it looks normal now. ~ihaveamac [talk|contribs] 00:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Reception

I think this article needs a section on its reception. I've heard things on both sides, and I think it's important to note what people think about the radically new desktop interface. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Windows 8 has been released everywhere yet, it says on the article that support starts October 30th. So reception would likely be minimal as of now. Ziiike (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/19/benioff_on_windows8/

Salesforce CEO Benioff: Win 8 is 'the end of Windows'

A link to start the horrified industry response section. Hcobb (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

However, that is one website, and one opinion. And in one target audience, I do not think there should be a reception section until past October 30th, when Windows 8 is released everywhere. Ziiike (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not sure The Register is a reliable source at all. Everywhere I go in Wikipedia, people are discussing its unreliability. (I hope I had remembered the link to them but I distinctly remember a discussion about computer viruses in which The Register had literally quoted from Symantec and said things that Symantec never had said.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

How this section can start by saying "mostly positive", i simply cannot fathom. "mostly negative" is what i would say. There´s more jokes about how bad it is before it´s even officially released than there was about Vista a year after release(and Vista´s problems while plentiful were mostly on the technical side, Win8 has serious issues with the user interface, personally i would never ever buy it for my mom or dad for example, it would be wasted cash). If you read on computer forums, the most common statements by those who tried it is one form of annoyance or another. Two not uncommon questions are "did MS try to make the worst OS they could?" and "Is MS trying to push Windows ME down from the top rank as the worst ever Windows?". And no Lisa, "The Register" isn´t really unreliable, they often write about rumours and some people somehow manage to read those as facts(they always differentiate between facts and speculation to my knowledge), they also don´t bother avoiding stepping on toes, and they like to make some neat headlines. But overall, The Register tends to be one of the better predictors of the tech industry. DW75 (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, mostly negative would be more accurate. PC magazines, gamer forums, youtube etc. have been bashing the hell out of it. Maximum PC says they won't be using it on their desktops & they usually pimp the hell out of the latest Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.135.167.21 (talk) 02:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You have to realize you are talking about two different things here. Windows 8 has been slaughtered by all reviewers. Windows 8 for tablets has got barley average views. But that is Windows 8 RT. Note the RT. Windows 8 has got crushed, 100% negative. Windows 8 RT got acceptable reviews. You have to separate this. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Forum posts and YouTube videos are not reliable sources. We can, however, use reviews from mainstream publications such as PC Magazine, USA Today, CNET, etc.. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I also agree that "mostly positive" is not correct. Computerworld for instance, loves to shell Windows 8. All I am trying to say is: An investigation is definitely due. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I tagged this source as unreliable. It cites two surveys with two sources, one from Toluna and the other by USA Today. Toluna surveyed only people who volunteered for its service, while USA Today cites Avast, which surveyed only users of anti-virums program. Not only are these survey samples not representative, it appears to be a voluntary sample as well. These is a well-known case of non-response bias, and most statisticians would agree that voluntary sampling is a disaster in statistical surveys (i.e. none of its conclusions are reliable). I think the entire line is better off removed, because there is no evidence to back it up. Banedon (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

AppX

AppX, which is the new Windows 8 UI Open Packaging Conventions deployment format, links here. But there is nothing in the article about it. Group29 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

If you can source it, feel free to put it in. --JetBlast (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy in description of operating systems - Removed features

“support for playing DVDs has been removed from Windows media player due to the cost of licensing the necessary decoders”… This is wrong Windows never contained necessary decoders for playing DVDs–they were always obtained by purchasing a machine that had a DVD player already installed by a third party or by purchasing such software installing it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.21.128.72 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Hi. I checked the source and it isn't wrong. Windows 7 plays DVD just fine. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the Windows 8 article not Windows 7. Was it a typo above or did you get mixed up with the articles. I assume its a typo but just checking you never know :-) --JetBlast (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This is not a typo: the keyword here is the word "removed", meaning that it is a comparison with the past version of Windows like Windows Server 2008 R2 or Windows 7. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, had you bought Windows 7, you would have a DVD decoder if you purchased the 3 top versions: However Windows has always lacked DVD playback decoder, and a just few versions of Windows 7 were the first to offer DVD playback. from the Windows website: "Windows 7 Home Premium, Ultimate, and Enterprise come with DVD playback capability built in. If you're running Windows 7 Home Basic or Starter, you can upgrade your edition of Windows 7 to add full DVD capability" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.159.34 (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. That single version is enough for having the word "removed" in the article. Still, I'll check on Windows 7's brothers as well. (I am referring to Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows Home Server 2011). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Windows Vista Home Premium or Ultimate also supports DVD playback. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, you are thorough- I stand corrected — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.159.34 (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

VSS itself is not deprecated

Regarding this statement:
Both the Shadow Copy and Backup and Restore features have been deprecated on Windows 8 in favor of the new File History function.

That is misleading.
The Volume Shadow Copy service (VSS) is still a Windows service, in Windows 8. One can verify this by viewing "Volume Shadow Copy" service, listed in the Services Management Console. Also, the command line tool for managing VSS is carried forward. Notice the "Applies To:" line on this page http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754968.aspx

Instead, what is deprecated is the convenient Windows user utility for creating system images (formerly under Backup and Restore), and the Previous Versions interface for recovering specific files from volume snapshots. Thus, the continued presence of VSS leaves the door open for use of any third-party volume imaging utilities - of which there are many - including free utilities. GRSmith26 (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Hello. The recent changes should satisfy you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Lisa. However... new information has surfaced. We all were wrong! The same old familiar user utility for creating system images (ala VSS BLB) has actually been carried forward into Windows 8. To find it, go to Control Panel -> All Control Panel Items (aka "Small icons", under the "Category" dropdown) -> Windows 7 File Recovery. From there on, it's identical. It still wears the title Back up or restore your files. And - more importantly - in the left-hand column you will still see Create a system image!

This refers specifically to Windows 8 Pro. I have not confirmed this is true in, hmmmm... the-Windows-8-edition-we-would-have-formerly-referred-to-as-"Home"?

BTW, Restore is a bit different because (by default) Windows 8 editions boot differently. If you want to boot to the recovery utility (repair disk), you have to restart Windows 8 using the "Advanced Startup" option under "General", under "PC Settings". In turn, this is reached by selecting "Change PC Settings" at the bottom of the "Settings" menu (right-hand pop-out on Start screen). GRSmith26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Hello. I knew this for long time and the article says nothing to the contrary. Previous Versions for local files and folders is indeed gone and Backup and Restore utility is indeed deprecated. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Quite true. And your point is well taken. The article says nothing to the contrary. Instead, I'm referring to the impression likely made on a non-Win8-omnicient reader. The tone here is like several similar articles on the subject, which leave the vague impression that traditional file backup and system imaging has been kicked to the curb in Window 8. I'm sure this impression exists only among those like myself who fail to properly parse the article wording. And besides, it's not like any significant percentage of users are doing either file backup or imaging, according to similar articles which attempt to explain the reasons behind these changes. But, for that small percentage of folks that have come to rely on imaging, it's easy to come away with the initial impression that moving to Windows 8 is moving to something less, in terms of built-in full system recoverability options - which, as it turns out, is not at all the case. I thought it might be nice if articles like this would let my fellow non-cognescenti would-be Windows 8 adopters know that. GRSmith26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Late entry: Apparently a new command line utility called recimg.exe is the Windows 8 successor to the GUI-driven "Create a system image" function, now moved under the heading of "Windows 7 File Recovery". Here is the support article describing recimg.exe. Perhaps you would be willing to add mention of that? How to create a system image to refresh your Windows 8 PC GRSmith26 (talk)

Hi. I will take due action to further clarify the matter but I cannot really promise anything about people who read one thing and assume the rest for themselves. You have to admit that the best thing we can do here to give the facts do coverage. But if you have any specific suggestion about the wording, we will be glad to hear or see. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The way it reads now - with the latest tweaks you've made - would have been enough - upon initial reading - to encourage me to explore the matter further, on my own. Which - I realize now - is all I was really hoping for by suggesting revisions. So, in other words, great! And, thanks for your consideration of these comments. GRSmith26 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi!

I think this is still misleading:

File History, the new backup feature of Windows 8 described above, replaces Backup and Restore, the former backup app, and Previous Versions, a component of Windows Explorer that saves previous versions of changed files. Backup and Restore is deprecated but will continue to work on preset schedule on computers that upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8

It claims "Backup and Restore is replaced" first, then that it will work "on computers that upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 8". I reality the functionality is there in all (including clean) installation types (can confirm for the Pro edition) --Xerces8 (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

After 1.2 billion hours of user testing

Great news, Windows 8 now is new record of public testing. News: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57540241-75/after-1.2-billion-hours-of-user-testing-windows-8-is-good-to-go/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

There was a lot of beta testing for NT4 SP6 as well, it still killed Lotus Notes until SP6a.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wrong and incorrect. Correctly, he noted that Windows 8 has been heavily road-tested, with 1.24 billion hours of pre-release testing across 190 countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.121.210.102 (talk) 06:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. IMHO, the validity of this comment depends on whether a proper feedback reception infrastructure is in place. Is it so? Or is it in fact 1.2 billion hours of advertisement?

By the way, how this 1.2 billion hours is calculated? The amount time between when user clicks on a download link and when the product hits manufacturing. Download took a long time in my case and I spent a small fraction of my time testing Windows 8. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Reviews

Reviews not mostly positive. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you please elaborate? When I say mostly positive, just look at the reviews. They seem to like most of the OS, but its the user interface that has received actual mixed reception (which has its own section due to its signifigance). ViperSnake151  Talk  16:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The second and third paragraph in the reception conflict with the opening sentence that Reviews of Windows 8 have been mostly positive. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was actually planning to remove that paragraph and move it to the actual Windows Store article, since it seems to be more relevant to the store itself rather than the OS. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone has made this edit. Hopefully that is acceptable. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 12:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

When reading the line

“However, Tom Warren of The Verge stated that Microsoft's addition of the Store was simply responding to the success of both Apple and Google in pursuing the "curated application store approach."[138]”

I noticed a few things.

To begin with I was missing what Tom Warren's authority was. Why is this claim enough to put it on Wiki? Who is Tom Warren? The only reference to it is that he writes for theverge. (biased claim?)

I also noticed that it did not make a lot of sense because Android does not have the closed system people complained about. They have a shop but it's also possible to create the software and sell it without intervention or shop from Google. Besides that, the people that complain about Window's approach are not the people who go for Apple. Microsoft and Apple don't target exactly the same customers.

However that would of course not mean that Tom Warren would not have made this claim. And if he did I was wondering if those imperfections should be mentioned. To really see what he said I went to the source.

But when reading the text it turns out Tom Warren did not say it like it was made to look on Wiki.

Tom Warren said that Microsoft had to go for mobile approach because Google and Apple where eating into the sales of traditional PCs with there mobile alternatives. (Beginning of the article). He did not say they had to go for the shop like this.

The literal quote (curated application store approach.) can be found a little later in on the site “Microsoft’s Windows Store represents the acknowledgement of Apple’s success with a curated application store approach.” so there is no mention of Google's Android here basically says they copied the shop from Apple that was successful. Not even saying that it is a good or a bad things what becomes obvious in the last line of that paragraph “If developers flock to the store and submit applications that consumers are willing to use then it’s game on for Redmond. If, like Windows Phone, there’s a severe lack of quality applications then the long term health of the Windows ecosystem could be rightfully called into question.”.

Concluding that the sentence on wiki is inaccurate and it also makes it look like if Tom Warren was giving an reactions against the complains what was not the case. He was simply stating that they copied the shop from Apple because Apple had success with it in a totally unrelated (to the negative reactions) article.

Because of that I decided to removed his line.

The sentence comes from user Gamer9832 at 18:23, 19 May 2013‎. He also removed some other negative reviews of what I personal feel that those claim are significant enough to be mentioned.

When doing the previous change and looking when the things I removed where put in I came across this statement from Gabe Newell.

User Gamer9832 removed that along with many other negative reviews, however I feel that this sentence is important enough to be mentioned as it demonstrated how strongly those people feel about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.26.55.166 (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Secure Boot potential vulnerabilities

Linus Torvalds has mentioned some ways in which hackers would be able to bypass secure boot.[3] Should this be mentioned in the article? Shawnc (talk) 06:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I would mention it. A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, guys. Did you read that article at all? Linux Torvalds suggestion is to disable Secure Boot. Looks like sensational journalism makes the world go around! Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not the way of Wikipedia. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well if he is suggesting to disable secure boot, I would say not to mention it. A Wiggin13 (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 doesn't have the font customizations in 7

I believe that it is an interesting thing to note that Windows 8 does NOT allow you to change your font color. This is an ongoing issue that Windows 8 has failed to address as of yet. I think it would be helpful to add this under "Removed Features" until they resolve this issue. Windows also does allow for customization of font types, but only in message boxes. Someone who can give references for these claims would be great and appreciated.

some links i found:

http://www.forumswindows8.com/performance-maintenance/how-change-system-font-windows-8-a-5676.htm

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/change-Windows-fonts <-- Notice that they mention how you cannot change system fonts.

http://www.forumswindows8.com/general-discussion/how-change-default-windows-8-font-3347.htm

http://superuser.com/questions/465404/how-to-change-the-fonts-in-windows-8

People are constantly mentioning a way to change it via the registry, but it seems to be hit and miss. No one really knows for sure if you can change the windows 8 font color via registry you CAN however change the font TYPE in this way.

I shall add this notion to the wiki if everyone is okay with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigafrost (talk • contribs) 19:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

These are forums and blogs. We cannot accept these as sources—you need a reliable source. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Windows 8 devices

Hi, I have created the wiki article for List of Windows 8 devices. Please chip in to validate and improve the information. Thanks in anticipation! --Pak1standby (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Such an article would become chaos with the sheer amount of OEMs and models that would come out around the world. Not entirely sure such a page is needed. ~Entegy 14:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Entegy (talk • contribs)

What about a list of not each specific model, but which computer companies sell products supported by Windows 8?Zalunardo8 (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I am afraid that is out of question. Wikipedia is not a directory. Such a list would share the fate of the deleted article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

True, I see! Thank you for your response Codename Lisa. Best, Zalunardo8 (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Still somewhat one sided

This article still reads a bit like a promotional brochure, if it wasn't for the reception and removed features section, one could almost imagine the entire thing written by the PR guys at Microsoft (and i would suspect they keep a close eye on this article)

I for one, as a computer retailer on the recieving end of all the axes customers wish to grind, could add quite a lot of factual points that would effectively destroy this product from a consumer demand perspective, but I don't like MS lawyers.. and that is their usual reaction to published critisim, it is also a pity that no magazine would be willing to go on record about the "promotion" payments paid to them to give positive reviews of it. How else could an OS UI that takes user interfaces back 30 years to the old dos menu systems, even sell in todays world? Yes its designed for tablets, so why the focus on it as a desktop environment? Many things are lacking on this article? Too many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.90.144 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

How many installed 8 and then reverted to 7?

4 million may well have installed 8 but how many like me soon reverted back to 7? As stated elsewhere, the 'metro' interface makes a PC look like a Fisher Price toy computer! I am quite happy for Microsoft to improve the operating system, but why do they have to change the GUI so dramatically? 40% of PC users are still happy with the XP interface. It is undoubtedly the most user friendly interface. So please Microsoft make windows 9 look like XP but with all the windows OS8 'improvements'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.166.144 (talk • contribs)

Because 40% is the majority. *rolleyes*

Get lost, going back to the archaic interface of a OS that came out over a decade ago and scrapping Vista and 7's many UI improvements would be taking a huge step back for no reason at all. -190.139.248.13 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the right place to be discussing this, but Microsoft created the Metro UI in response to the growing use of tablets, and this is where Windows 8 shines. Of course, it works well with a mouse and keyboard too, its only problem is people's resistance to change (which was also the case with Windows 95). pcuser42 (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

People who don't like a UI that's awkward and clumsy to use with a keyboard and mouse and goes back to the DOS days in which you couldn't multitask nor run apps in windowed mode are just resistant to change? Riiiight. - 190.139.248.13 (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place to discuss this. --JetBlast (talk) 21:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JetBlast. IMHO, I think you are being a little heavy-handed in your treatments here. If the issue of reversion to Windows 7 is genuine (like the issue of Vista downgrade to XP) and the reliable sources cover it, we should (not must) also cover it. This section can be a venue for the discussion and introduction of sources. If on the other hand, it proved not genuine, MiszaBot will still take care of archiving this discussion.

I am not giving complete credit to our guest here but I think it is a point that must be kept in mind. Groupthink must be avoided. It is worth mentioning that if everyone was right, there would have been no need for talk pages in Wikipedia. Talk pages are places where we discuss the neutrality issues like this.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

There is not indication at all that there is any contribution to the article. The IP user is trying to engage on talks about Windows 8 not the article. Wikipedia is not a forum. --JetBlast (talk) 11:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

Perhaps true; perhaps not; I have no evidence to tell for sure. Let's just assume good faith and keep a sidenote. I do not want to become pro-Microsoft oriented while I am trying hard to avoid falling off the line of neutrality to the anti-Microsoft side.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it. If there's a source that deals with this, then certainly it can go into the article, but without such a source there's no way to tell. Maybe 100% of the people who installed Windows 8 reverted to Windows 7; equally possible 0.00001% of the people who installed Windows 8 reverted to Windows 7. Without no source and no statistics, how are we to know? And if we don't know, how can it even be written into the article? Banedon (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. As we speak this issue has already gone into the article, but not in the black-and-white manner that you present. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Sinofsky was canned a couple of days ago

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2012/11/13/microsoft-sinofsky-fired-windows-8/1702511/ 188.26.163.164 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

that's not for Windows 8 article.ElectroPro (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article spends most of its length attaching the issue to "lukewarm" reception of Windows 8. I think this calls for merging the two talk page discussions and, like I said before, keeping an eye on this aspect of Windows 8. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Steven Sinofsky has his own article which can cover this.--Racklever (talk) 06:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The article is titled: Will Microsoft restore Start Menu to Windows 8? So, I think it belongs here.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the current issue of "Ergonomics in Design" (April 2013), William F.Moroney cites that article and says "The Microsoft executive responsible for Windows 8 was fired 15 days after its launch. His departure appears to be related to the removal of the start menu.... Usuability expert Jacob Neilsen described the initial release of Windows 8 as having "disappointing usability for both novice and power users"...." Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

British English & American English

Hi, There seemed to be a mix of British English and American English. A quick scan of the article to me seemed that it was a fairly equal use of each. To make it standard i switched a few American English spellings to British English. Its much better than a mix of both. A consensus isn't required to standardise the spelling, only to change the whole article. --JetBlast (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, JetBlast.

Excuse me for being blunt but do you have any idea of what British English is? This article is completely American and a slight inconsistency in word spelling does not make it British. It used (and still uses) double quotation mark, American date style, American collocation and definite articles ("the") in American style. In fact, what British word did you see in it?

According to WP:RETAIN:

“ When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. ”

If you wish to standardize anything, please learn about it first.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Let me guess: Oxford comma, isn't it? I am afraid Americans also use it and then there are other variations of English besides American and British. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? What makes this an "American Article"? You only marked it American English after i made it standard using British English. In the article there is a mix of british and american spelling, it doesnt make it American just because a collection of words are spelt that way. There are no tags or anything indicating its written in American English. After a very quick scan an example is the spelling of "advertised" in the article. Oh by the way double quotation marks are used in British English. It shouldn't be mixed in the same article. The article should be constant. Would you rather have a mix of english dialects in there? Yes that makes perfect sense! You marking the article American English and moving EVERY spelling to American English is the violation of rules. One other point remember to assume good faith not accuse me of breaking the rules! Also try to remember you don't own the articles. In the past if you dont like the edits you basically kick up a fuss because its not your way. Also the policy you quoted says "Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive." - why did you start this one? --JetBlast (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

It is software developed primarily by a company based in the United States. Thus, per the guideline suggesting that articles use the variety of English with strong national ties to their subject, this article should remain in American English. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because it was developed primarily by a company based in the United States doesn't mean it should be in American English. There is no preference to English used in wikipedia. I made it all standard to British English because i had the tools to do so handy, made things easier. --JetBlast (talk) 17:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Back to main discussion. Yes, I reverted you and add American English tag. I often practice WP:BRD. As I said, this article was in American English, only you say it had a few British words. (I couldn't find any in this revision.) Even now, the article is still in American English, only you have used a lot of British words in it, which is wrong. As I said, it is not only spelling that defines a language variety, but also punctuation, date style, definite article use and collocation play a great part. British English most often use single quotation mark, day-first date and have different views on when to use "the". You are obviously not familiar with British English.

Interestingly, you have put a WP:AGF and WP:OWN warning on my talk page while you counter-reverted my BRD revert, effectively sparking an edit war. I think you yourself deserve receiving these warnings.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I answered the 3-0 request. Wiki style decrees that USA/Brit usage be determined by earliest edits, not mixed or altered. I checked the history and determined that the first reasonably expanded version is around HERE http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_8&oldid=432139080 . There I found the words "minimize" and "color" - US usage. I therefore recommend that this be maintained in this case. I am a Brit and regularly uphold British usage - but not in this case, sorry! Redheylin (talk) 18:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

@Lisa, in that edit there is the word "advertised" Americans spell it with a Z. "British English most often use single quotation mark" - Utter rubbish you clearly don't know much about British English, maybe you should research it instead of saying correct statements? Redheylin has a fair point. I will go with that. Lisa you should also take note at the way he spoke to me. You should learn some people skills. What you said wasn't particularly nice, and upset me. Remember assume good faith. --JetBlast (talk) 19:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

"advertise" is how it is spelled in the U.S. as well. --SubSeven (talk) 19:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Really, thats odd the people in the US office at work seem to spell it that way. --JetBlast (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think "advertize" may be an accepted alternative but it's rarely used. --SubSeven (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I live in the United States, and in addition to typing this, I'm eating an apple pie and watching a baseball game while riding a majestic bald eagle (I'd also be wearing an American flag as an awesome cape, but United States statute forbids it). The point is, I'm as American as any other US Citizen, and advertize looks very odd to me, and in fact my browser's US English spell-check wants me to correct the z spelling to advertise. It certainly isn't a common variant spelling here in the United States. The Cambridge American English dictionary lists advertise as a word, but doesn't even seem to acknowledge advertize. Advertise is the common spelling in the United States. - SudoGhost 20:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@JetBlast: There is absolutely no evidence that Lisa assumed bad faith in you (in fact, she is very polite) and your behavior could use improvements. There is no second R in BRD and there is no call filling other people's talk page with warning templates when they exercise their BRD right. The British use both single and double quotation marks but she is definitely right about the date style and the fact that British words were rare in the article. So, stop pressing unfounded charges just to hide the fact that your judgment was wrong. This tactic is old. Fleet Command (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, this conversation...if I had a nickel... I believe in this case, as it is in American based company (their headquarters lies in Washington State, U.S.A.), then the article should favour American English for this and most other Microsoft related articles. Please see WP:TIES. As Microsoft has it's 'ties' in America, then that's the variant that should be used. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jguy. Actually, it is strong national ties that matters, not just ties. However, you cannot browse Wikipedia discussions without stumbling over discussions about whether Microsoft or its products have national ties. The current consensus seems to be that a tie (let alone a strong tie) does not exist: Microsoft is a multinational company with significant overseas development and markets that invests heavily on localization, with a diverse spectrum of employees. There is nothing about Microsoft that ties it to U.S. more than anywhere else except when the issue strictly concerns patent or competition laws. In fact, if Microsoft quietly move its headquarters to another country, no one would feel anything.

A strong national tie occurs when a nation's citizen talking to a foreigner on the subject can claim "you don't understand", "you have not been here", "it matters to us" or "you don't and can't see the way we see it". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Windows Store and Apps

The section explaining the use of the Windows Store and Apps is a bit unclear to me. It does seem to state that touchscreen applications can only be installed from the Windows Store, but there is no mention of installation of traditional desktop applications by downloading .exe files from developers' websites. For instance a reader trying to find out if an application, such as Firefox, can be downloaded as an .exe file from Mozilla's website can then be just clicked on and installed, can't find a clear answer as to whether this works on Win8 or whether only applications from the store can be installed. Can this be clarified? - Ahunt (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Windows Store Apps can only be downloaded from the Windows Store. Normal Windows applications can be downloaded from anywhere. They are two different things.--Racklever (talk) 12:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I gather then that they can not only be downloaded from anywhere, but installed by just clicking on them as in earlier versions of Windows? - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ahunt. You asked a lot of questions... First, why should it seem to you that "touchscreen applications can only be installed from the Windows Store"? The article only says "these apps are to be optimized for touchscreen environments"; it never says they are to be the only form of apps and are to have exclusive access to touchscreen interface. Second, why should there be a "mention of installation of traditional desktop applications by downloading .exe files from developers' websites"? It is totally out of context. Third, a reader looking for answers for compatibility questions naturally finds no answer here because he is looking in the wrong place. Whether any given app works with the new OS should be answered on a case by case basis.

I believe your final question is about the exceptional case of web browsers which are the only apps whose Metro-style form can be obtained from outside Windows Store, along with their desktop version installer. So, yes, you are right because the article explicitly says it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codename Lisa (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your reply here. Actually I wasn't asking about whether any given application would work on Win8, obviously some older applications will and some won't and some won't work well with the new interface. I have been a Wikipedia editor for quite a while, but I am not a Windows user, so I came to this article as a reader looking for some basic information, couldn't find it and I think it should be included. I can see that using a browser as an example was not a good choice, because browsers are a special case. All I was trying to say is that a reader trying to find out if applications can be installed via .exe files in the traditional Windows manner can't find that information and the section Windows 8#Windows Store and Apps leaves the impression that they can't, although it is quite unclear. I am requesting that some text be added to make this clear. - Ahunt (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Oh, I see now. You are referring to that same feel of being lost and having no background when I read Linux articles. Well, yes, Windows Store and Apps section does not describe what has so far been the routine in Windows. I can give you a quick heads up.

Traditional Windows apps run in rectangular windows – just like graphical apps in Mac OS and Linux OSes like Ubuntu or Mint. In Ubuntu or Mint, there is one package manager (like Apper or Ubuntu Software Center) which you'd search while connected to their Internet to download and install apps. In Windows, there isn't just one; there are download websites like Download.com and Softpedia but also electronic distribution systems like Windows Marketplace, Microsoft Store, Steam (software), Uplay and Origin. (Diversity is one of the reasons Windows is so popular.) Retail outlet that sell software packages on discs are also popular. Once an installation package is obtained, yes, just double-clicking it would launch an installer which would guide the user through the process of the setup. It does everything needed to be done to make the app ready to run.

Windows 8 article might not be the best place to include these info. But the "where exactly" question is debatable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I think all the article needs is the addition of something like "Applications can also be downloaded as .exe files and installed in the traditional Windows manner." - Ahunt (talk) 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• My understanding is that the "only Windows Store Apps" can be installed is reference to WindowRT, a slightly different version of Windows 8 or Windows 8 Pro. That seems to be what's on a lot of the smaller tablet and phone devices (which typically have a much smaller solid state HD (16-32-64 Gb) vs SATA (320 Gb and up)). PC and laptop devices will typically have Windows 8 (as opposed to RT), and you CAN install 3rd party software on those. (although as mentioned above, some software may have compatibility issues). — Ched :  ?  21:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for that clarification! I think it would improve the article to add something brief on that subject, just for the sake of clarity. - Ahunt (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, Ched. I am afraid you are completely wrong. (Actually the article says it.) The only way of introducing a metro-style app to either Windows 8 or Windows RT is through Windows Store and this is independent from their status of being third-party product. Third parties willing to sell metro-style apps must sign a contract with Microsoft, have their apps pass Windows Store tests and be installed on their customers' computers through Windows Store. Perhaps, Ched, you are confused by the difference between Windows RT and WinRT.

What is not mentioned in this article but is mentioned in Windows 8 editions article is the fact that Enterprises can enter into another contract with Microsoft through which they can sideload their own in-house metro-style apps on Windows 8 editions without going through Windows Store. But this method only works in-house. They cannot circumvent Windows Store to sell metro-style apps to arbitrary customers.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lisa. I think we're talking past each other here. By "3rd party" - I only meant outside the apps store. (such as a boxed CD or download from say Softpedia or MajorGeeks. (as the kids would say .. "my bad"). Yea - I'm familiar with the difference between the OS and "runtime". My understanding is that with Windows RT (the OS that runs on ARM devices) any install has to go through the Apps store. Am I wrong about that? (btw - are you good with Ubuntu? .. I need to get better acquainted with that from my bootable thumb drive perspective). I've already installed apps (boxed, downloaded exe files etc.) on Windows 8, so I don't have any questions on that. (other than perhaps what you mean by they can sideload their own in-house metro-style apps on Windows 8 editions without going through Windows Store. But this method only works in-house. They cannot circumvent Windows Store to sell metro-style apps to arbitrary customers. ... although I'm not really looking at, or familiar with the business end of it all (other than I know many companies for years have been paying for the little "Windows approved" stickers.) I will admit that I didn't do any beta testing with 8 like I had with 95-7 ... so I'm still getting up to speed with 8. (and still grumbling about it). Best — Ched :  ?  10:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here, even between subject-knowledgeable editors, points out a need to clarify this in the article text. - Ahunt (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

LOL .. I did get a chuckle out of that. I guess I shouldn't edit when I wake up in the middle of the night. :-) — Ched :  ?  14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Ched. I see now: Switching "third-party" for "traditional apps" makes everything right. And since there has been no "only Windows Store Apps" phrase, either in this talk page or in the article, I had to make free interpretations.

Hello, Ahunt. Actually, I added a lot of those for you!

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that, but the sideloading issue seems to deal with network installations ("the process of transferring data between two local devices") and doesn't directly address downloading and installing .exe files. Perhaps that could be added as well. - Ahunt (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Reports on Win-8 instability

I have been hearing a TON of reports that windows 8 is chronically unstable. Has anyone else heard this? A Wiggin13 (talk) 17:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I haven't. Do you have any sources? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I have just been hearing horror stories from my cousin who works as a computer repair tech. Something about if you put a "Windows 7" Application on it it tends to refuse to launch Windows Explorer. A Wiggin13 (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "Windows 7 Application". I has been using Windows 8 for a month on laptop, and has been stable. Ruslik_Zero 18:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a update the Microsoft pushed out in November that caused a pretty major slowdown for a lot of users. Apps refusing to launch seems to be a common problem as well, with the suggested solution being to refresh the computer. Reinstall all my programs, no problem. Program launch times were pretty bad, comparatively speaking. I have an SSD and usually I can have OneNote or Word open in under a second. It would like 5-7 seconds to open, hanging up on something for whatever reason. A few weeks later, none of my apps would open, it would just sort of hang on the startup and then close again. Store repair function and uninstall/reinstall did not fix. Also, intel has not released any display drivers for their older models, driver frequently crashes and resets. Sometimes have to reload youtube because I will have only audio. I have uninstalled it for now, maybe I'll give it another go sometime in the future but too much trouble for the time being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.226.122 (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

maybe all these things are due to your lamerity, lol. Hey admins how about that this is not a forum bla bla bla? Why here are so much (unrelated to the article's real improvement) "scary" stories, opinions about what somebody associate with tablets and what not; and verbose "improvement" propositions from the "actually i'm not a Windows user" persons? Hey, ahunt and co, go and further "improve" your linux articles which _all_ are 100% false, noisy, dumb annoying disgusting advertizings and not more. I as a reader have seen very well how this "care" from such opensourcedumb4sses are reflected on the ms- and windows-related articles.

77.52.154.152 (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC) ntkrnlpa.exe

Hello, i see this argument yet i do not see the point, that windows 8 is still young and needs time to naturally mature, while windows 7 already had this time and matured. i do believe that in time when windows 8 has the time to naturally mature, things will be different. as for speed of the OS, i have played with windows and different update levels. I noted that with the Enterprise Roll up pack KB2775511, the Slow-boot-slow log on patch which fixes 90 issues which lead to reduced performance, actually windows 7 starts to work as fast as windows 8. So give Windows 8 time to naturally mature.

78.83.97.112 (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

not Microsoft Surface

Uh, my edit wasn't about Surface, but about Microsoft driving away tablet sales by charging too much for the tablets of other companies, not Microsoft Surface. Hcobb (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for clarification. Now, it seems you agree that your edit was not about Windows 8 either because you specifically mention "tablet". So, please let me get this straight: Is this message just a notice or is it an objection to my revert?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It was about the abject failure of Windows 8 on tablets. No wonder that you reflexively delete any mention of tablets from the Windows 8 article, as NOBODY thinks of Windows 8 when considering tablets. That is exactly what my ref was talking about. Hcobb (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That is exactly quiet the opposite. I examined the source carefully. (That's how it got into my head that you mean Surface.) And as I said before, I hardly think it was about Windows 8 at all, let alone its "abject failure". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 February 2013

New at this but seems like the 'Market Performance' section of the Windows 8 article should be updated. The sentence "As of 2013, Windows 8 has two percent market penetration as compared with five percent for Windows 7 at the same point in its sales cycle." should be expanded to reference relative Windows Vista adoption as shown by clear and unambiguous findings of Net Applications. The sentence should be changed to "As of February 2013, Windows 8 has 2.6% market penetration as compared with 8.2% for Windows 7 and 3.3% for Windows Vista at the same point in their sales cycles." Here is the reference: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9236436/Windows_8_s_usage_uptake_falls_further_behind_Vista_s. 24.20.220.86 (talk) 09:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Camyoung54 talk 18:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Opening

"Windows 8 is a version of the Microsoft Windows operating system..." Wouldn't "Windows 8 is the latest version of the Microsoft Windows operating system..." be more appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.217.211 (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No it won't. According to WP:DATED. words, clauses or statements that lose accuracy with age should be avoided, such as "recently, newly, latest, etc." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Windows 8 is not the latest version of Windows at this time. It its the latest entry in Windows NT family, but not in the whole Windows family. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. What you're saying is understandable, but it is a given that no article is "forever permanent". If you lookup Microsoft Office 2013, the opening is different. Thanks. 79.183.217.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What you say about Office 2013 article is true. I will perhaps fix it sometimes later. (Currently, I am in an edit dispute there and I cannot really edit that article.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Very well. Thank you. 79.183.217.211 (talk)

I'm in favor of "latest version". Lisa, I think you're taking WP:DATED far too literally. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Quest. I hope you don't mind my moving your message out of that tangle of unrelated discussion.

First, Windows 8 is no longer the latest version of Windows – with WP:DATED or without it. Microsoft has released some NT-based Windows Embedded versions in 2013.

Now, I think there is no denying that the aim of WP:DATED is to prevent articles from having wordings that need constant changing over time. An article saying "today" needs its wording changed to "yesterday" the next day. With that in mind, I don't know what you mean by too literally.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS is just a guideline. We're supposed to use common sense in applying it and that it will have occasional exceptions. Windows 8 is the latest version of this OS, and readers are benefited by knowing this.

Meh. Nobody knows what Windows Embedded is. We serve the general public, not ultra-uber tech geeks. If there's a non-awkward way word this sentence that addresses you concern, that's fine. If not, let's not be anal and get caught up on technicalities.

For example, if Mary Jo Foley writes an article that says Windows 8 is the latest version of Windows, the editor-in-chief at ZDNET isn't going to refuse to publish the article saying, "No, you can't say that, there's Windows Embedded 2013!"

A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. But I wasn't quoting WP:LEAD in my last message. I was talking based on common sense. All in all, you say we should write incorrect statements because no one knows why they are correct and therefore feels compelled with incorrect? People who are satisfied with incorrect are better served with their own imagination than Wikipedia. As for Mary Jo Foley, she does not write a Wikipedia article. "The woman who strikes fear within the walls of Redmond" is a journalist and sensationalist and therefore goes by her own standards. She holds none of the Wikipedia policies, rules, guidelines or essays valid, including but not limited to V, NPOV, NOT, N, RS, AGF or even SNOW! (Seriously, you were saying something about common sense, my friend.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, common sense. You're advocating being less informative in favor of being anal. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am advocating avoiding a phrase that is both factually inaccurate and not supported by WP:DATED. If all the argument against is "I like it", "ZDNet does not do it" and a pejorative, then that concludes our discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how did you manage to twist being more informative into "I like it"? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And actually, I'm in agreement that our discussion is over, since you don't seem to understand what I'm telling you. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows is a family of operating systems, not one OS. --illythr (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am not sure to what is the purpose of your comment. Have you spotted something problematic, or are you just not a fan of metonymy? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I spotted this. It is also the first line in this section, so I hoped that further clarification is unnecessary. But, just in case, Windows 8 and 3.1 both are members of the Windows family, but are not versions of the same OS, as the opening sentence currently states. --illythr (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't NT a call out to the distant past, while WinDos in general indicates an evolving standard? I.e., doesn't this change hint at 8 being in someway pre-XPish? Hcobb (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. It is unclear what "this change" exactly means in your message (my edit or Illythr's suggestion?) but I find the Pre-XP interpretation very far-fetched, especially since the article and its navbox have more than once explicitly stated that it is a successor of Windows 7. But as for the distant past part, before I say "no", I'd like to attract your attention to the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and therefore makes a deliberate conscious attempt to invoke distant pasts. Windows NT has become "the Windows" over time but this does not invalidate the taxonomy. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If I may, While I agree that Windows 8 is indeed of the NT family, I still find its presence in the opening to be a bit "iffy". Maybe a more generalized description like Windows 7 and Windows Vista has: "Windows 7 is an operating system produced by Microsoft for use on [...]" Thanks. 79.183.217.211 (talk) 13:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh look, another content dispute in Windows 8 article! Why am I not surprised?

I am talking, of course, about recent edits (and the resulting temporary article protection, which was rightfully placed by an administrator)... Was somewhat amusing (and at the same time pretty sad, actually) seeing people trying to remove such wording as "Walled Garden", even though this is the exact phrase that was used by few people in their articles about Windows 8 - for example here and especially there, by an actual game developer, who said: "What you don't see here is that, under the hood, the new tiled UI is a means for Microsoft to lock Windows applications into a walled garden, much like the one on iOS"... I'm glad that someone had senses to actually leave the link to a Wiki article about Closed platform instead of nonsense non-linked wording like "regulated application store" (which would NOT be helpful at all for a general Wikipedia reader), but I still disagree that the phrase "walled garden" was removed altogether simply because someone assumed it being a "loaded terms" or similar nonsense... Quite a sad place the Wikipedia is becoming, but oh well... Rndomuser (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Rndomuser

The edit warring bothers me too. I once reinstated one of the changes by User:ViperSnake151 because I thought the revert, on the pure basis that Viper did not provide an edit summary, lacked merit. Even then, I never imagined the situation to aggravate into its current state of affairs.

However, if you also take issue with the removal of "walled garden" term, we can orchestrate an RFC to obtain consensus. Although I do not believe there is any problem with the term itself, I favor the new wording because it is shorter and delivers the same message.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 05:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a problem with the term. It is highly specific and pejorative. It's fine (of course) to quote other people who use it but it should not be used as it was used here (in Wikipedia text that introduces a section that includes a number of such quotes) unless it is representative of a clear majority of the quotes. As it is, we can say something like "many reacted negatively," but the specifics of how in particular each quoted person reacted negatively should be left to the quotes from those people. Jeh (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the term should be restored because it is indeed used in descriptions of Windows 8 by WP:RS - numerous reliable sources at that. I now request that as many users as possible voice their opinions on this so that WP:CON on this issue can be gauged. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I don't think it should be restored. Reliable sources are necessary for inclusion of one piece of content in Wikipedia but are not sufficient. If it is a pejorative term as Jeh explained, then it is against our WP:NPOV policy to include it. Besides, the new sentences say the same things in shorter terms, albeit it needs copyediting if the article is to reach WP:GA state. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If it is a pejorative term used in descriptions of the subject in question by numerous WP:RS, it is actually against WP:NPOV not to include it! Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is to represent fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Repeating their insults is against the "without bias" part. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the use of the word "walled garden" primarily because it sounded like a loaded term, and because the actual page for "walled garden" was moved to Closed platform just last November. I chose to be careful with the new wording to ensure it only says that just the Windows Store is closed and not Windows as a whole. Although, I like the current wording we have for it right now, to be honest. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 Aero

Let's forget about the Metro UI and focus on the Aero. I've just upgraded from XP to 7 and I run Win 8 on virtual machine. Aero in Windows 8 is 100 times better-looking and working than the glassy over-the-top Aero of Vista and 7 in my opinion or the tacky Luna. I bet there is some research in client satisfaction with Windows 8 Aero, so I think it should be included in the article. 79.100.15.18 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure whether to revert this or not, seems like general discussion to me (WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:ORIG) pcuser42 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I'd take it easy on WP:NOTAFORUM too but our guest editor needs a source. A bet is far from enough. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Pcuser: If you'll review WP:TALK you'll find very little support for removing others' comments from talk pages, even if they violate talk page guidelines... other than blatantly abusive material, vandalism, BLP issues, and so on. And much advice to proceed with caution in such matters. And although part of that paragraph is forum-ish the last sentence does want to discuss what is seen as an improvement to the article.

To IP: CNLisa is of course correct. If that research exists and you can find and reference it, then that can be included in the article, but your belief in that direction is nowhere near enough. Jeh (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh And Luna Is Not Tacky And Aero In Windows 7 Is Just Fine. 54.241.223.5 (talk) 17:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

To the editor recently known as 54.241.223.5: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "IP sock using AWS?". Thank you. Jeh (talk) 19:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...I seriously hope that was a joke comment. Windows 8 has the ugliest look I've ever seen in any OS, it's like it was drawn by an amateur graphic designer in 20 minutes. Even Windows 95 looked infinitely better. If anything, the high number of users looking for third party modifications to re-enable Aero Glass is proof of client DISsatisfaction with Win8's look. - 200.45.218.16 (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu

¿why is ubuntu on this article?Agustin cordes is 666 (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It was an act of vandalism. It's been fixed now. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Top Photo

Why is the photo of Metro and not the desktop? The desktop is symbolic of the Windows Operating System. Can we get a split view of Metro and the desktop??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 03:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Because The metro screen is the trademark of windows8, and Micro$oft is ruled by a bunch of ignorant pricks who decided it was a good idea to remove the startmenu and introduce metro, however no one asked for it and no one wants it... 109.131.159.86 (talk) 11:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing The Start Date From Support Status

Yes I Want It Removed Its Been There For A Long Time Yes.But The Date Has Already Passed. Its Very Outdated And I Want It Removed.And Its About Windows 8/Oh And Server 2012. 54.241.206.197 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

"I want it removed" is not how we establish consensus here. Should we also remove all birthdates from biographical articles, because those dates have passed? Jeh (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Propose Changes

We would like to make a correction or update under the market share section. In this section we see that the sales of PC has suffered due to Windows 8, which is not exactly true. If you look at the following article published by CNN money we see that Windows 8 is not to blame for the decline in PC sales. "Even if Windows 8 were the most well-received and critically acclaimed operating system ever, PC sales would probably still slump.Why? Tablets." http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/17/technology/windows-8-pc-sales/index.html Damian itec44 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Dayas357 (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Itman91 (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The article does not opine anything about this point. It merely cites various well-regarded sources. We can certainly cite CNN Money as presenting a differing view ("On the other hand, CNN Money posits that..."), but we must not assume that CNN Money is correct and all of the others are wrong. Jeh (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for "more legitimate" photo of future version

There is a screen-shot of a late-March "leak" of non-public Beta in the article. This screen shot is involved in a deletion discussion.

If anyone has any screen-shots of a this or a later non-public beta which has been previously published in a reliable source (and which wasn't later "un-published" because the publisher decided it was a mistake to publish it), that image would be preferred to the one that is here. In otherwords, one that either won't be nominated for deletion or one which will be WP:SNOW-kept if it is nominated.

In any case, as soon as a public beta comes out, the discussion of the late-March release should be trimmed and this picture removed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The license is quite clear: "you may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released". Also can everyone please remember that WP:CRYSTAL applies. "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." --Racklever (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, David. I am surprised to see that you even bothered to start this topic. What you asked occurs as soon as some manages to lay a hand on such a shot.

Unfortunately, such a shot will not exist until Windows Blue enter public beta stage. Internet leaks are piracy under DMCA and are not even covered by fair use, let alone Microsoft license grant. Those are against our NFCC#4 and NFCC#10. There is no such thing as reproducing what reliable sources publish because there is no consensus in favor the "let's do it because no one is going to sue us" discussion. Wikipedia conforms to set rules that are deliberately stricter than copyright itself.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, this is an outright copyright violation. We've been continuously removing Microsoft beta screenshots from Wikipedia, I don't see why this should be an exception or even open for discussion. This image should be removed ASAP. Lprd2007 (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair use doctrine says that "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors." I don't see where you're getting this part from. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello.

1. Wikipedia WP:NFCC says previous publication is required. (It is deliberately more strict than U.S. laws.)
2. And fair use considers "The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work". Let's not beat around the bush: The whole purpose of publishing leaked screenshot is affecting both the market and the value. Or else, who do you think the journalist write their articles for? Ants and bees?
3. I cannot find your sentence in http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html. Where did you get it from?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to be late to the party, but the sentence "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors" can be found at 17 U.S.C. §107 which outlines the fair use exception to the six exclusive rights of the copyright holder in §106. I've already stated my position elsewhere that WP:NFCC#4's previous publication requirement does not require authorized publication by the copyright holder. Nor should it (a lot of things are not technically ever published under copyright law, plus there may be very good reasons for displaying a widely-circulated leaked screenshot in some cases, in accordance with the rest of WP:NFCC). RJaguar3 | u | t 23:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Nothing good comes out of irrelevant discussions like "authorized publication is not required" as we are discussing a self-published image. Fair-use does not cover images made of stolen confidential intellectual properties whose sole purpose of publication is to impact that public reaction towards a certain product. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You keep saying these things yet don't provide a source that actually verifies your arguments. Like I said, fair use does not consider whether the work was published or not, but it does consider other arguments. Under "the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", this is only a single screenshot of something that looks relatively similar to how the current version looks to begin with. This is not code or the entire ISO, this is a very small portion of the whole work. Then, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value"; if it is showing a positive change, indeed, this may increase the value of the final product in a good way. And on "the purpose and character of the use"; it is pretty much consensus that discussing the content in an educational, transformative form, is fair use. And by the way, the DMCA anti-circumvention clause actually says that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." Sure, leaking the ISO is a different story, and any distribution of content from it could violate NDA's, but only for the employee who does so. But again, I agree more with the WP:RS arguments on using "leaked" screenshots. If it is a self-published screenshot, we cannot sufficiently verify if it is a fake or not. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

100 million copies sold

http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/07/microsoft-tops-100-million-windows-8-licenses-promises-win-blue/

Windows 7 launch - October 22nd 2009. 100 million licenses sold - April 27th 2010.

Windows 8 launch - October 26th 2012. 100 million licenses sold - Recently (mostly april ending or May 1st). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.177.86 (talk) 05:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Added to article.--Racklever (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Google taking over Microsoft's market

As per my edit that got undone...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/28/idc_predicts_worst_year_for_pcs/ "But for many consumers, a tablet is a simple and elegant solution for core use cases that were previously addressed by the PC."

Direct quote from a notable source. Google predicted to directly replace Microsoft. Hcobb (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Ummm...this quote in particular makes no predictions; it only states that tablets work as well as PCs. As for the rest of the article, the predictions made are that Google would overtake Apple and that tablets would overtake desktops/laptops. In fact, Microsoft is only mentioned once: "Sales of desktops will decline in 2014, although only by 1.3 per cent, and could rise very slightly in 2015 as businesses moving from Windows XP buy new hardware to upgrade." - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: I'll also remove the statement sourced here. This article also talks about a move from PCs to tablets, not a move away from Windows. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And that source says:

"Microsoft hopes to bully users—especially corporate IT departments rather fond of the robust XP—to switch to its new Windows 8, sales of which have not been as perky as hoped. But the move might prompt even more users to flock to tablets instead."

As Windows 8 on tablets is a no-show in terms of market share, the average user who switches from PC to tablet does so by dropping Microsoft. Hcobb (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Beware of original research by synthesis. The claims we make on Wikipedia need to be the exact same claims found in the reliable sources. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Let me address some of the edit summaries used to justify restoring these predictions:

[4] - "both statements mention Windows" - Yes, they mention Windows, but that's not enough. They need to make the same predictions about Windows that you're trying to add to Wikipedia.

[5] - "the revised statement is a prediction, not a claim" - I'd say that a prediction is a claim about the future, but it doesn't matter. The same rules that apply to claims also apply to predictions. The source needs to make the exact same prediction that you're trying to add to Wikipedia. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the difference between the statement in the article and that in the source in each case? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

IDC predicts that tablets will outsell desktops and laptops by 2015, and that Android will outsell the iPad. The article instead says that Google/Android will outsell Microsoft. The article also blames this on Windows 8's failure, which the source does not.

The Economist predicts that PC users leaving XP may flock to tablets. The article goes a step further by saying they'll flee Microsoft, even though Microsoft is actually working on breaking into the tablet market. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, but have you considered rewriting the statements instead of simply removing them? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Register source has nothing to say about Windows 8, so I don't think there's anything we can write that would be relevant to this article.

With the Economist source, we could mention that Windows 8 sales aren't "as perky as hoped." - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with both of your points, but I suggest this as a replacement for the first source: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/052813-idc-pc-270198.html Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

That source may be useful. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

How is Microsoft's tablet market share a "no-show"? This article right here (http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/25/strategy-analytics-q1-tablet-stats/) states that Microsoft had a 7.4% market share in tablets from Windows 8/RT, after only being on the market for a half a year. That's insanely fast growth and a very decent share of the market. There are also over 100,000 apps in the Windows Store as of today. Gamer9832 (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 Start Button & Boot To Desktop

In recent images of Windows 8.1, it looks like Microsoft has re-added the start button to the desktop with a Boot to Desktop feature which will be disabled when the Operating system is installed but probably users will be able to enable Boot to Desktop in PC Settings. The Start Button isn't like the usual Start Menu in Windows 7 but will however take users to the Modern All Apps Screen.

I heard about that too. It seems that the start button is nothing more than a shortcut to an already existing feature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.47.30.187 (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

http://gizmodo.com/leaked-windows-8-1-screenshot-oh-hello-start-button-510309304

http://www.winbeta.org/news/screenshots-windows-81-start-button-and-start-screen-emerge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.44.115 (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It was pointed out somewhere (I can't remember where) that the screenshots may be fake because there's no prerelease software message in the lower right corner, and it looks like Start8. pcuser42 (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

the start button do open a start menu. i know because i have tested it myself. it do however look more like the classic start menu than the xp, vista and windows 7 start menus. please dont delete the truth.84.208.64.62 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Testing it yourself falls under original research. Besides, the Start button opens the Start screen as it did in Windows 8. pcuser42 (talk) 19:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest, and assuming good faith, that the reason you see a start menu rather than a start screen when clicking the Start Button is because a modifier is installed to restore that functionality.  drewmunn  talk  20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Link to start button

Link to Start button in the last sentence of the introduction, resulting in the following:

"like bringing back the start menu button, whose removal was recognized as an error."

Thanks. 72.244.204.96 (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Done with this edit. Thank you for the suggestion. Begoon ^talk 06:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

USERS ATTENTION PLEASE

Today before 25-30 mins ago after visiting a website i.e, Windows 8.1 Full Features List, in Softpedia news page, i decided to edit and update the info. according to that website in Windows 8 article of English Wikipedia. So i did it, my editing lies in the "Windows 8.1" sub-section of "Updates" section OR here is the link to the article, [6]. Now the question arises is every thing correct ? Or there is still something that needs to be improved ? If there is something EVERY USERS here are adviced by me to correct those mistakes. Friendly users Drew and Lisa please overlook my works. Himanis Das  talk 06:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Will make some edits in a second, but first I'm going to ask some people from the WikiProject for their views on the alpha build stuff.  drewmunn  talk  06:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Using all-caps is considered to be shouting I would personally try to integrate these into the existing list of features (for example, there are now two Interface sections in that list). I also see grammar errors in your addition, but those shouldn't be too hard to fix.

My biggest concern is whether Softpedia is a reliable source for this, because I've known them to publish rather speculative information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It might be worth putting them, as a source, forward for review. Regarding the other list, that details leaked build components, and I've asked WikiProject Software for their views on it. Integrating wouldn't be a good idea, as the first list is "features that may or may not be in the final version", the second "features Microsoft have stated will be". The first one is very speculative, the second (now deleted) comes from a report.  drewmunn  talk  06:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

• Trumping all that, having checked the cited source, the content added is plagiarism. Himanis, you can't just copy text directly from the source, you must rewrite it completely to make it your own. Ideally, you write it yourself and use a source only to back it up, rather than using a source to structure your contributions. In line with our guidelines, I've deleted the offending content.  drewmunn  talk  06:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
• Once again i would like to pull Drew's leg, the news reporters at Softpedia are not fools, you see atleast 2-3 informations or references must be there regarding that news (within own words). Is that clear ??Himanis Das  talk 09:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you mean there. I suggested to Jasper that, as he has reservations regarding the accuracy of Softpedia, he put it up for review, and it can be decided if it's reliable by a higher authority. If this is relating to the copyvio grounds on which I removed the content you added, then I did so because a Cmd+F of the Softpedia article using sections of your contributions resulted in a large number of hits with their content. As such, there is substantial evidence that copyright violation has occurred to satisfy the copyvio guidelines, and I removed it.  drewmunn  talk  09:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8.1 shown at Computex and TechEd 2013

Microsoft officially revealed some more features about Windows 8.1 and showed a public demo showcasing boot to desktop and more.

http://www.winbeta.org/news/microsoft-demos-windows-81-enterprise-build-9415-teched-2013

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8Gr1rDjcDZU (Windows 8.1 @ Computex 2013 - Demo, apps, devices)

http://www.winbeta.org/news/check-out-new-windows-store-and-start-screen-settings-windows-81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerByte2 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Microsoft revealed that Windows 8.1 will be available this year

Dear all,

Microsoft revealed that windows 8.1 will soon be available. I will add this next to "succeeded by" in the table. please dont delete this, as im not adding anything of my own; it has been officially declared, and sources of this are available at microsoft.com. -- MMA Rox (talk) 06:24 , 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed it because Windows 8.1 is not yet released, and you didn't cite your sources. pcuser42 (talk) 06:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Endorse removal. Hi. |Succeeded by= is not for updates and feature packs anyway. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Blue Screen of Death

"Additionally, the Blue Screen of Death has been updated with a simpler and modern design with less technical information displayed."

Thanks a lot! ---Dagme (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Kernel changes

Since the latest kernel mention got rolled back, I thought it would be best to talk about it here rather than fuel an edit war.

http://www.zdnet.com/windows-blue-under-the-hood-minkernel-and-basefs-7000013290/

Lots of interesting stuff, but I'm not sure how much of it belongs in a "general interest" article. Hcobb (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the article, although it had no bearing on the the issue at hand. It mentions MinKernel and MinWin, both of which were part of Windows 7. What I removed was the claim that 6.3 and 6.2 and the version numbers of Windows kernel, for which there is no evidence. So far as we are concerned, all sources refer to "Windows version" and "Windows build" and none of them assign a separate version number to Kernel. The only Windows components that are know to have independent version numbers are DirectX, .NET Framework, Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player. All other components have the same version as that of Windows itself.

That said, you'd do well to avoid ad hominem statements such as "rather than fuel an edit war" especially before such a thing happens. One revert is not edit war. (Was there even one revert?) Remember, always comment on the contents, never on the contributors. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As for version numbers, is M$ a RS on this?

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows8_1_pr-windows_install/windows-81-kernel-version-number-change-to-be-made/af9ed048-c898-4273-bc84-f7db0133831a

Hcobb (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. That is no Microsoft; rather, it is some guy posting in a Microsoft-hosted forum, using "kernel version number" phrase. A forum post is generally not a reliable source because the problem with "some guy" is that he or she can simply be wrong. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

How about the verge?

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/19/4005318/windows-blue-screenshots-nt-version-6-3

or PC World?

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2028883/windows-blue-rumors-hint-at-major-windows-update-this-year.html

or ZD Net?

http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-windows-blue-may-have-just-hit-milestone-1-7000011514/

Hcobb (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cobb.

First, There is not a single instance of "kernel" in ZDNet link. In fact, it calls it the Windows version. So, we seem to have sources that say different things.

Second, you should really learn the difference between a normal "if" clause and an "if and only if" clause. The fact that one source talking about the kernel mentions a "kernel version number" does not mean that the said number is not the version number of anything else. Quick test: Compare the version number of WordPad with that of Winver. You'll see they are the same.

Finally, you have obviously learned the concept of reliable source wrong. There is no such thing as one publisher that is always reliable. (e.g. you cannot say that everything ZDNet write is reliable.) No. Wikipedia requires reliable sources that publish the points of view that matter and the only point of view that matters in term of version number is Microsoft's. (Hello! It is a Microsoft's product!) In other words, no matter what everyone else says, it passes for a mistake. (Let me give you an example: I chose my username to be Codename Lisa. If ZDNet reports that I am Codename Julia, for instance, it does not become the truth; it is their mistake.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Codename Lisa's revert of this and comments here seem like a clear case of WP:DE (especially if combined with certain actions of this user at other articles). I think this content should be restored immediately (with a WP:RS, of course, such as one of those mentioned above) and the user in question reported if this user reverts it again.

Come to think of it, since this user reverted it twice already, the user in question has already violated WP:EW at this article. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I removed two different edits of the same nature, as opposed reverting twice in a forth and back manner. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Spoken Word

173.2.69.50 (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Note

Can I Please Remove The "Start Date" For Support As It Already Passed. It's Not On Any Other Windows Article. 75.71.219.35 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No, you can't. Sorry. It is a silly thing to do, although if you want to remove your birthday from your birth certificate because it is passed, I won't stop you. But this case is different. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

But It's Not On The Windows 7 Article! 75.71.219.35 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi again. If you have a source and would like to add that information there, you are more than welcome. You don't need permission. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)