Talk:List of Microsoft Windows versions

Box Art?

Does anyone think that box art should be included with all released versions of Windows, if that edition has its own box art? 67.181.82.100 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, i agree!--Umpajug 3rd December

No, I disagree. If we had all of the box art, then it would clog up the page. And there are a lot of boxes... Aero Flame 18:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps just a logo for each version?-----Mattmatt1987 (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

List Updated

I have updated this list. I have moved almost all of the XP versions to "old versions", and added all the Vista ones. I have also added two pictures of the boxes of Vista. Aero Flame 18:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added the box shots of: Windows 1.0 and Windows 98 SE2. Aero Flame 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The past versions section changes from a timeline to a list of products half-way through. I would suggest changing it to a list of products (in approximate time order). If people felt a formal timeline was a good idea, it should include current releases. Currently the page is a mess; this is my idea of how to correct that mess. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Current and past?

Why is XP already moved to "Past versions"? It will remain a "Current version" as long as it's still selling! --Arny 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This is so because Vista is the current version, the latest version of Windows from Microsoft, and XP is not. It doesn't matter weather it is still selling or not. You could buy windows ME or 2000, or even 98; and that doesn't make it the "current" version. Aero Flame 12:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue, some aspects of the list need reworking, specifically "NT based" list doesn't really list all NT-based versions... --Arny 04:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Support for Windows XP will continue for quite some time. That, and I do believe more people use XP than Vista. Wouldn't that make it a 'current' version? Perhaps a different label should be used, such as 'most recent release' or something. 124.171.191.88 (talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. Windows Vista has only just been released - give it a chance! And once Service Pack 1 is released, it will fix many problems. :) --Aero Flame (talk) 12:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Windows NT Errors

For a start, windows nt 4 never ran on IA64. Furthermore, Both Windows 2003 and XP should be included under NT-kernel based, rather than given own sections.

Error

"2007 - Windows Server "Longhorn", codename for the next server operating system from Microsoft. It is now Windows Vista." - I don't whether I am reading this correctly but this seems to make out that Windows Server "Longhorn" has been renamed to Windows Vista, which I thought it hadn't. Rather I don't think Microsoft have even given this product a final name yet, though many seem to think it will probably be names Windows Server 2007 or 2008. Any thoughts?

You are right. And it will be called "Windows Server 2008". Aero Flame 19:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleaned Up

I have cleaned up the section "Past Versions". Exothermic Reaction 21:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List should be updated

I've read recently the July 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics and it says that there is a new version of Windows that was kept top secret for seven years and "it's the coffee table that will change the world." This new version of Windows needs no keyboard or mouse and will be hand on. The new "OS" is called Windows Milan and I suggest that the "List of MS Windows versions should include this revoultionary piece of technology. For more info see [1].121.97.170.117 10:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The OS will only be available for the "coffee table computer", and not much information if known about it, except as you said, it will have no keyboard and mouse. The surface of it will be the screen, and user interface (the touch screen). Also, it will have very good built in wireless capabilities (you'll be able to transfer a photo from your camera, to your phone without any wires, and without syncing it by 'dragging' the 'photo' across to the phone, when it is on the table!), and will only be available for places like hotels (but later homes). They only have one or two years left, and it will be ready to buy.It will cost about £3000. Exothermic Reaction 22:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface, also known as Milan, is not a Microsoft Windows version but rather a computer model running the Windows Vista operating system. See Microsoft Surface for details. Phil ryans 10:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Versions 3.x and older weren't operating systems

Strictly speaking, versions 3.x and older weren't operating systems but just GUI environments. Still in this article they're in the common list of past versions under the heading "a major operating system". --Лъчезар☭共产主义万岁★ 08:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

They were, but not standalone. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Spelling errors

The very first text in the article contains several spelling errors. I tried to edit the page myself, but the text isn't editable from the main edit page. This is the text i'm speaking of: "Latest Verstion: Windows 9 Comming In 2014 by Suhaib Powerd By Microsoft." Version (Verstion), Coming (Comming), and Powered (Powerd) are misspelled. I hope someone can fix it.

Inconsistent OS vs update rules

According to Windows lifecycle fact sheet, Windows 8.1 is considered an update to Windows 8, not a whole new OS on its own. I do not think it should be a top-level bullet here. The upcoming Windows 8.1 Update 1 will also be, obviously, an update.

Also, why is Windows 7 Service Pack 1 listed at the bottom of the Windows 7 list as though it's a completely different "edition" than the others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.203.102 (talk) 22:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view, not Microsoft's point of view. In this case, the "update" status is simply a Microsoft marketing tactic to improve Windows 8.1 adoption. Every other sign tells us that Windows 8.1 is a full-fledged OS (namely Windows NT 6.3) which is about to receive its own service pack called "8.1 Update 1".

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Every other new OS had new a license and had a cost to update yet Windows 8.1 is a free update to Windows 8. I would argue that splitting it off on it's own is in not from a neutral point of view. As placing it on equal ground with other Windows versions favors Microsoft, do to the "Every other version of Windows is a failure." ideology.

Also If Windows 8.1 is a new version of windows it's section should be rewritten to not read as an exact copy of Windows 8.2605:E000:2761:D500:25B1:E072:D838:3EB3 (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Windows 8.1 is not free to everyone; just retail and OEM customers. Others have to pay for it. I did argue that splitting it was a mistake. I lost. The subject meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability; hence it can have its own article. We've argued all these points to death; you can find a copy of them in talk pages of the corresponding articles. Last but not least, if you have a rewrite in mind, please, shoot. I'll decide when I read it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Windows 8.1 is not free to everyone; just retail and OEM customers. Others have to pay for it.": http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/upgrade-to-windows-8 under the heading "How much does Windows 8.1 cost?": "If you're already running Windows 8, it's free. Go to the Windows Store to update to Windows 8.1." Yes enterprise users where not provided with a update disc, like previous service packs, but I haven't found any thing saying they couldn't update each machine from the store, also one can install 8.1 and then later activate it with a window 8 key. Talk:Windows_8 every time there is any thing about a split of Windows 8 in this talk page it's overwhelmingly opposed where did this change?2605:E000:2761:D500:25B1:E072:D838:3EB3 (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.97.205.188 (talk)

And somehow you've taken all this to be gospel-truth. I can write a whole article to debunk that but that article is already written: We've already discussed this in more appropriate talk pages as well as WP:AFD. You can study the past discussions.

Look, I answered your out-of-context question once just to be nice; I will not have the discussion diverted from its course. The bottom line is: New operating systems versions can be offered at whatever cost; this does not change the fact that they are new operating systems versions. If you wish to dispute this, consider taking the issue to the appropriate talk pages. This list is just a table of contents that reflects what other articles say. Only once other articles are changed we can change this.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Layout of this page is very poor (list is shown reverse chronological)

I dont like the way this page has been laid out. Rather than have it in a 'table' format, or even have the various Operating Systems list chronologically (with the earliest being at the top, and the latest running down the screen), instead whoever compiled this page has all the Operating Systems listed in reverse order (latest first) and bunched up so close together with no spaces, that it just looks like a jumbled up mess!.

This is one of the poorest 'Wiki-list' pages I have seen! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.219.250 (talk) 03:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the date order seems backwards for my purposes. Since different users have different purposes the answer would seem to be to have the table sortable by the date column. As I have never done a sortable table, I request that a more experienced editor do this. It would be very helpful to me, and probably to many others. - agb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.233.174.248 (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree that order should be chronological. This page immediately seemed 'very odd' to me as it was reverse order - so I guess that having it backwards is not standard practice. 'Cancelled Versions' section is chronological - how bizarre and inconsistent. As Codename Lisa is active on this page, I will not engage in editing. Taliska (talk) 12:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Taliska

This version comes from before I signed up to Wikipedia: [2] It uses newer-first chronological order. Per MOS:STABILITY, I must respect that choice of optional style. If you can show me a really good benefit in oldest-first, please tell me. I really don't see any benefit in either. (The only time I've seen people reversing sorting style on Wikipedia is Linux fans changing OS lists from "Windows, Mac, Linux" to "Linux, Mac, Windows" so that their favorite OS is first.)

Of course, if you disagree and believe the majority of people agree with you, an RFC puts a definite end to it.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

hai Subject

To determine the best way to test for a feature, refer to the documentation for the feature of interest. The following list discusses some common techniques for feature detection: You can test for the presence of the functions associated with a feature. To test for the presence of a function in a system DLL, call the LoadLibrary function to load the DLL. Then call the GetProcAddress function to determine whether the function of interest is present in the DLL. Use the pointer returned by GetProcAddress to call the function. Note that even if the function is present, it may be a stub that just returns an error code such as ERROR_CALL_NOT_IMPLEMENTED. You can determine the presence of some features by using the GetSystemMetrics function. For example, you can detect multiple display monitors by calling GetSystemMetrics(SM_CMONITORS). There are several versions of the redistributable DLLs that implement shell and common control features. For information about determining which versions are present on the system your application is running on, see the topic Shell and Common Controls Versions. If you must require a particular operating system, be sure to use it as a minimum supported version, rather than design the test for the one operating system. This way, your detection code will continue to work on future versions of Windows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.164.37.77 (talk) 05:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Missing Windows Version

There was a special boxed version of Windows 3.0 developed jointly by Microsoft and Intel. Intel Windows 3.0 for the InBoard 386/PC was a version that was designed to work with the Intel InBoard 386 accelerator cards for the IBM PC and XT-class systems. This version of Windows allowed InBoard users to run Windows 3.0 in 386 Enhanced mode. It wasn't available retail, but could be ordered by people that purchased the InBoard though mail-in. I know this is legitimate because I still own a complete boxed copy and am still running a working copy. The copyright on the installation disks for Intel Windows 3.0 for the InBoard 386/PC is listed as 1990 with a joint Microsoft copyright 1995-1990. The shipping box is labeled 1/22/91. Should this version be included in the article?

Another missing one is Windows 3.11. It was officially an OEM only version but could be bought from some vendors on floppies. Some PCs came with a CD-ROM that had 3.11 split up into subdirectories under one subdirectory so that the contents of each could be copied to floppies for installing. 3.11's main differences from Windows For Workgroups 3.11 were it didn't include the networking stuff and supported 32 bit disk access or 32 bit file access. I don't recall which, but only supporting one made the other pretty much useless. Windows 3.11 also retained Standard Mode so it would run on an 80286, unlike WFWG 3.11 that required at least an 80386. Bizzybody (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Support dates

Seems like this would be a good place to put Mainstream and Extended support end dates - has that been discussed? I'd make the change myself but the page is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.131.254.90 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The Microsoft Windows article is already doing it. No need for that smut here. —Codename Lisa (talk) 05:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm the one who made support dates of server and PC versions of Windows. Feel free to know more in it. —119.92.14.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Microsoft Windows versions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080901024005/http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/27/ms.whistler.idg/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/01/27/ms.whistler.idg/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 12 May 2018

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: Discussion moved to Talk:History of Microsoft Windows 2601:183:101:58D0:104D:DE4A:EA8A:957B (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

---

List of Microsoft Windows versions → Microsoft Windows version history – The title is consistent with most of these articles in Category:Software version histories. 2601:183:101:58D0:B1A3:66A8:99B9:68D2 (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a list and the title should reflect that. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Should History of Microsoft Windows be moved to Microsoft Windows version history? Why or why not? 2601:183:101:58D0:41EA:E8A8:43B9:4626 (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I would support that move. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2018 (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.

Couldn't this have been deleted?

Based here on each version, they promote every single operating systems here but then I was thinking here, why doesn't this got deleted. First of all, it shouldn't be making me get to temper now, but my other draft got deleted due to promoting even if I wasn't. You must understand it, let me know why this article hasn't got its draft deleted. 119.92.14.102 (talk) 08:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Add a reference on Windows 10's codename Threshold

Hello, as of fact, I created the codename section for PC versions, but never added Threshold. Whoever added it must put a reference to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.92.14.79 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Add semi-annual windows server versions

The semi annual windows server versions are currently not mentioned e. G. 1709 and 1803. Agowa (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Split Windows 10 versions

Windows 10 is a rolling release and every bigger update performs the whole upgrade procedure. There also feature and version naming changes (like LTSB to LTSC) Agowa (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I added a link to the Windows 10 version history article. That article does a good job of detailing the various Win10 versions and I don't think we need to expand this article specifically for Win10 stuff. --Sek-2 (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Windows 2000

Windows 2000 is in "Server versions" section but that OS also available as Professional edition. What section could be fit for an OS available as Professional and Server editions but without Home edition? Also Windows Expert's YouTube channel shouldn't always be a trusted source for information. Xiao Wang (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Don't get information from Windows Expert

Windows Expert’s channel isn’t made to be factual. I watched his videos and they are very inaccurate. I think his channel is meant to be all fan-made stuff. What makes me angry is that he doesn’t make it clear to everyone. If you did much research about Windows and watch his videos, there’s obviously a ton of inaccuracies. He also considered "Metro" as the codename for Windows 8(.0) while it's actually the name of the Start screen experience and Windows 8 doesn't have an codename. So Wikipedians fellows, please don't use Windows Expert's channel for sources. --Yue Ling (talk) 04:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC) His videos are entertaining...--97.77.56.2 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

When to list Windows 11?

What should mark the point to list Windows 11? On the rumor, the announcement, the release, what?

The expectatation is it will be announced on 24June “Next for Windows” event (PCMag.com).

FWIW, I saw Win10 was listed 1 Oct 2014 with date “TBA”, well before the actual July 2015.

Cheers Markbassett (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

IBM OS/2 In image only?

why is ibm os2 listed as nt version in the time image but i cant find it anywhere else on the page? 2001:569:FA45:2300:49E3:2D27:ED06:B7C7 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Version of windows

@ 114.31.129.81 (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why there isn't text on this reply, but based on the title, I can assume this user was just as confused as I am that this page doesn't seem to properly list Windows 7, 8, and 8.1? Am I missing something? Darkshadows9776 (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)