Talk:Windows Mixed Reality

Stub

Are we beyond stub or should it be marked? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:: please no more reverts of 'self-reverts', i.e. by user that added and assumed is not 'worthable', as p.e. my recent two edits some 20 minutes ago; it's imho not 'motivating', thx Roland zh (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Smart glasses

"Smartglass assumes another device is doing most of the work and it's a remote control. This is not the case." It is expressed at several points in the smartglasses article that such an assumption is less true nowadays. I certainly don't think it defines the category, any more than having a stylus or a physical QWERTY keyboard defined the smartphone. Referring to HoloLens as smartglasses was not incorrect. It was not original research, and the connection is easily referenced. I believe that the description of the device as "self-contained" was sufficient to clarify the matter. Dancter (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we need to do something to prevent its confusion from the other smart glass. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

3D xnwdxwxc 196.157.35.139 (talk) 13:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

By the way I'm guessing this isn't a true use of holography, involving the interference of light waves. Thus the name "Hololens" should be noted as a bit deceptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.6.130.136 (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See Also

This seems like its going to get bloated real fast. Can we make sure to nail down a criteria? Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the ones that were in the navbox (per the little note in WP:ALSO); is there an opinion on putting all of the links into the navbox and removing the 'see also' section altogether? --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Internals

I know there isn't much data yet on how this device works, but what data there is should be incorporated somehow. Wired's February cover story goes into a bit of detail about the internal workings of the device. Zell Faze (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 23 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Some editors think we should wait until more information is available. That seems logical. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

---

{{requested move/dated|Microsoft HoloLens}}

Windows Holographic → Microsoft HoloLens – The name Hololens appears to be the official title of the device and I have not seen it referred to as Windows Holographic in any reliable source. --Relisted. Number 57 17:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Zell Faze (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, what is being referred to as "Windows Holographic" is not the same thing as Microsoft HoloLens. HoloLens is a device. Windows Holographic refers to an AR technology platform which Microsoft says extends to all Windows 10 devices. The device would not be referred to as Windows Holographic in a reliable source because a reliable source would be clear about that distinction. I wouldn't agree with any claim that there is no coverage of a "Windows Holographic" in a reliable source. Despite being absent from any other official Microsoft press material or webpages, the phrase "Windows holographic" was mentioned several times in speech during the presentation. While it seemed safe to assume that "Windows Holographic" was an official name based on the how the term was used during the presentation (most of the media made this assumption), it isn't necessarily so. Regardless, official name or not, Windows Holographic does refer to something real and describable. Dancter (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I know that we have a section in the article titled Microsoft Hololens, but so far it seems like the article is mostly dominated by that topic, as is most of the news coverage. I think it would be better to relegate the APIs to a section and make the Hololens itself the main topic of the article. I suspect given time the article will be split into two with both topics having their own articles, though that won't likely happen in the immediate future. Zell Faze (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I would actually prefer adding the Windows Holographic material under the Windows 10 article, with redirects for Holographic pointing to the subheading there for now. The Holographic section in that article would include a statement on HoloLens linking to the article here. Dancter (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense. It is its own tech and we have articles for the Kinect as opposed to being an Xbox section. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The coverage that is specific to Holographic is currently three sentences. Even in this discussion, there is a dispute about what it is. Is it an OS?[1][2] Is it the HoloLens device? Is it a set of APIs, or a user interface?[3] As I mentioned above, there is a possibility that "Windows Holographic" isn't even a name. I used the term "computing platform" to describe Holographic in the lead sentence, but that is a very generic description that I only used because it was the one I felt most confident in ascribing to it. HoloLens clearly has enough content to be its own article. There is a push to make HoloLens its own article and Holographic a subtopic. In that case, I would prefer it be placed somewhere that reflects the breadth of the platform. It is not a HoloLens-specific technology. It is currently a Windows 10-exclusive technology. Dancter (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with Dancter that "Microsoft HoloLens" is better title for this article and "Windows Holographic" is better suited as a section under "Windows 10" article. The news coverage also supports having separate article for "Microsoft HoloLens". -Abhishikt (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
• Windows Holgraphic should be added to the Windows 10 article and Microsoft HoloLens should be the name of THIS article. Chambr (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I suggest we wait this out until more information hits the press. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 08:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: As of this posting, the move destination proposed by Zell Faze is Microsoft Hololens. Most of the other comments so far (including mine) have discussed a move to the camel case form Microsoft HoloLens. Dancter (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I should have proposed a move to Microsoft HoloLens. My apologies. The Camel Case title is what I would personally prefer. Zell Faze (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, Microsoft HoloLens is the more common name (compared to Windows Holographic) and we should create a new article focuses specifically on HoloLens. We have enough information from Microsoft to cite this new article. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 14:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Personally I think that it's best to see both products develop on their own after their announcement and even possibly split the software and hardware sections into separate Wikipedia articles, both sections are small at present because A) neither Windows Holographic nor the Microsoft HoloLens have been officially released, and B) because of A the information is limited so there isn't much to write about, anyhow we could go either way today, but we'll have to split them up tomorrow (figuratively). Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Category and Template "Microsoft Windows Components"

Windows Holographic will have A.P.I.'s enabled in Windows 10 devices (both P.C.'s and Phones), I wonder if this article could then be considered a component of Windows, ¿or should it be considered differently? as not all components are for consumers and/or end-users, nor are they always visual, but before adding the template and category I wanted to consult with other editors first. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I don't see the harm in adding them for now, though. If someone disagrees, they can just remove them, and discuss if necessary. Dancter (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I merged the two articles. However, they need fixing

I just finished merging the two articles together. Just note that they are not perfect and I only merged them. I did little to no fixing. Any fixing that you can do would be greatly appreciated.

Catcha Later, The f18hornet (talk) 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I just cut most of the merged material out. Once you omitted the low-quality content from the HPU page (such as the text from that PC World article), most of the text was redundant statements about the HoloLens, but instead attributed to the HPU. Admittedly, regarding what the HPU specifically does, even I was a bit careless about what was actually said. I rephrased things to tighten it up a little. Dancter (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For reference, the rest of the discussion about this merge proposal was here. Dancter (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Split Windows Holographic and Hololens?

I think the articles should be split. Hololens is the device (like Surface) and Windows Holographic is the OS (like Windows 10).Ians18 (talk) 05:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

{{newsrelease}} template

@Thomas.bhatia: I noticed that you added the {{newsrelease}} cleanup template to this article on July 20. Which specific parts of the article do you want to improve, and which changes would you suggest for this article? Jarble (talk) 08:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A "controversy" section was added to the article. Hopefully, criticisms can be better covered in "Reception" section, or perhaps eventually into a "History" section. As it is now, I find the existing content problematic. Since the article has already been flagged by someone as reading like a news release, instead of simply removing the section I have tagged the content for: reliance on a single source, non-neutral assertions, editorializing language, and inaccurate statements. Dancter (talk) 00:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:SPLIT Windows Holographic -> Microsoft HoloLens & Windows Holographic

I suggest a split between the software and the hardware content in this article, though these two are intertwined the Windows Holographic set of A.P.I.'s is a part of all Windows 10 and Windows 10 Mobile, and Windows 10 Internet of Things software systems and the Microsoft HoloLens is a specific piece of hardware. And may I point out that there has been written a lot about the Microsoft HoloLens by a plethora of sources, in fact way more than E.G. Microsoft Band 2, Sony Kabushiki Gaisha's Project Morpheus, the Microsoft Surface Pro 4, and the iPad Pro yet all of these subjects have their own articles/pages on Wikipedia, and even if one would look at relevance I'd say that looking the at the number of Microsoft Bing search results would be a great indicator of what is talked more about, compare Windows Holographic with 1,070,000 results Vs. Microsoft HoloLens with 2,780,000 results it's obvious that the Microsoft HoloLens most certainly has the right on its own article.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Please split. --Neo-Jay (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment My position is largely unchanged from a year ago: move this article to Microsoft HoloLens, revise it to reflect the new focus, and spread coverage of Windows Holographic between this and the Windows 10 articles. One thing I have changed my opinion on is where the Windows Holographic link should redirect to. Back then I stated that it should point to a subheading of Windows 10. I now feel that it should redirect to a subheading of the HoloLens article for now. Dancter (talk) 17:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

I have added an infobox to the Microsoft HoloLens section, but because some sources contradict each other and for some reason I can't put references in there purely by name (as in that I am re-using a previously used reference) I am letting the editing at the hands of more experienced infobox makers of this type (as I mostly specialise in websites and other types of hardware on Wikipedia), so if anyone would please fix some "uncited" aspects that I added I'd be very grateful. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

HoloLens.com Vs. Microsoft.com/en-us/HoloLens

I'm not sure why an abbreviated link is used multiple times in this article that redirects directly to another website, just because Microsoft owns the U.R.L. doesn't mean that it's "the official site", I'm not sure if it's particularly encyclopedic to use a wrong link as the official website is clearly Microsoft.com rather than HoloLens.com. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Images depicting the technology and their descriptions

It's clear to most of us that the images presented are simulations (artist's renderings) of the technology and operating system. The first image is promotional material as well - which isn't necessarily problematic but the descriptions are potentially misleading. At best, these are 'an artist's vision of a user interacting with the operating system' - but I think the current assumption that the images actually depict users performing the screenshot is unfounded, and unlikely in my opinion.

I'm a fan of the technology and I recognize the intrinsic difficulty in depicting a HUD environment to people using a 2d display. It's essentially the same difficulty in trying to advertise a 3d display - where a lot of artistic license is taken in advertising the concept to newcomers. I do like the images - I think they are good abstract representations of the concept, but I don't think the descriptions should imply actual use. The description for the 'minecraft' image in the main hololens article seems to have already done something similar.

I had made an edit to achieve that effect however it was reverted claiming I had introduced original research. Perhaps my wording was the issue - but I think the argument is valid.

I'm proposing that the image descriptions at least be consistent between the two closely related articles. Something that at least makes it clear that these are artistic concepts that try to show what it would be like to use the technology. EspritsPréparés (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2017

@Codename Lisa:, @EspritsPréparés:, @Sheldon.andre: I would like to propose that the name of this article is changed from Windows Holographic to Windows Mixed Reality due to an official name change of the operating system.

Source - [4]

Daylen (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Looks genuine. I have a PC World article saying the same thing: [5]. —Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning both "virtual reality" and "mixed reality"

Reality-Virtuality Continuum

Hello

It appears our colleague ViperSnake151 (Hi, Viper! ) is in favor of mentioning both "virtual reality" and "mixed reality" as the genre of the subject of the article, as two mutually exclusive concepts. He wrote: Mixed reality implies augmentation of a real-world environment (i.e. Hololens). Microsoft is pushing its own nomenclature and per Start screen. We follow the sources, not MS.

• Let's start with the "We follow the sources, not MS" part. Sure, but the burden of proof is on a person who adds or reinstates material. Nonetheless, here is a statement, along with a source, coming from mixed reality article:

  In 1994 Paul Milgram and Fumio Kishino defined a mixed reality as "...anywhere between the extrema of the virtuality continuum" (VC), where the virtuality continuum extends from the completely real through to the completely virtual environment.

  P. Milgram and A. F. Kishino (1994). "Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays". IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems. pp. 1321–1329. Retrieved 2013-10-17. {{cite conference}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)

  I believe this proves that "mixed reality" already covers virtual reality, augmented reality and augmented virtuality.
• Next, "Mixed reality implies augmentation of a real-world environment". That's augmented reality. And yes, mixed reality covers it too.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:02, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This ecosystem was originally about HoloLens only, and it is still being pushed as the flagship device of the ecosystem. Our own article for mixed reality states that "Mixed reality takes place not only in the physical world or the virtual world, but is a mix of reality and virtual reality, encompassing both augmented reality and augmented virtuality via immersive technology." Normal VR does not necessarily provide this, and the "immersive headsets" are nothing like HoloLens besides some of the technical know-how under the hood.

The idea of HoloLens was to be a more advanced form of AR; even before its "extension" to VR, Microsoft insisted on referring to HoloLens as "mixed reality" and not augmented (the entire article is actually a decent read). Even then, I believe in the notion of clarity; reliable sources and the general public have been engineered to recognize "virtual reality" as having specific technological implications, and this article should follow the commonly-accepted standards between "mixed" and "virtual" reality established by coverage of both products within the Windows Mixed Reality ecosystem. This TechRadar article even mentions that the recent line of headsets are "a bit of both [VR and AR] – though far more like the former than the latter." ViperSnake151  Talk  14:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. :)

Don't you think what you wrote is a little self-contradictory? First, you say ‘"this article should follow the commonly-accepted standards between "mixed" and "virtual" reality’, then you go ahead diffuse it by saying ‘"TechRadar article even mentions that the recent line of headsets are "a bit of both"’.

Well, "a bit of both" no longer adheres to the commonly-accepted standards for virtual reality.

"[...] Normal VR does not necessarily provide this". The opposite is not correct though. Normal MR definitely provides it. It is analogous to a sportsman: The augmented muscular body enables whatever physical activity a normal person can do, plus more.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Some years have passed now and maybe this question can be revisited. It seems obvious that the "windows mixed reality" headsets were in fact VR headsets. Oculus Rift S and Quest do the same thing now, but they are not marketed as "mixed reality" headsets. They are VR headsets, which for all intents and purposes is the correct name.193.40.10.98 (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)